Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Dementia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Ms Rachel Squire: I am pleased to have the opportunity today to debate long-stay care for people with dementia. This week is Dementia Awareness Week in Scotland, organised by Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia and I wish to take the opportunity to pay tribute to that organisation and the work that it does throughout the year, and to its sister organisation, the Alzheimer's Disease Society.
Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia have published an excellent report this week entitled "Putting Quality First". I intend to speak briefly about some of the points raised in the report and the action that I and others believe needs to be taken to improve long-stay care for people with dementia. I firmly believe that such action would be of benefit to everyone who may or may not need long-stay care for whatever reason at some time in the future.
The issues raised by debates such as this affect all of us and go to the heart of the values and principles of our society. A society such as ours has a moral obligation to provide quality personal long-stay care for all who need it, whether early in life through accident or disease or later through advancing age. I do not believe that the provision of long-stay care should be left to the individual and the marketplace, especially for those who have paid all their lives for the welfare state in the belief that long-stay care, if they ever required it, would be provided free at the point of need by the national health service.
The start of the report from Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia outlines the principles for long-stay care—choice, independence, dignity, privacy, fulfilment and rights. I hope that those principles will shape our discussion today.
I am sure that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members are aware that dementia is a disease characterised by damage to the brain cells which leads to a decline in intellectual and physical functioning. It is the fourth killer disease in old age, after cancer, heart disease and strokes. It is a complicated, lengthy and distressing illness that has severe consequences for the sufferers, their families and friends. The provision of high-quality long-stay care is an essential part of the continuum of care for people with dementia. It is not an optional extra, but is inevitable in the progress of the disease.
Currently, there are about 61,000 people with dementia in Scotland and 650,000 in the United Kingdom, of whom some 40 to 45 per cent. live in institutional care. It is

reckoned that the growth rate in the number of people with dementia will be the same for the next 15 years as for the past 15 years, so we are not talking about some demographic time bomb, but about a predictable steady increase that can be planned for. The key questions we need to address are whether there will be enough long-stay care, whether it will be of quality and whether it will be in the right place for families and carers. Increasingly, throughout the United Kingdom, families, carers and sufferers of dementia find that the provision of long-stay care depends on where they happen to live, not on their needs. The provision is becoming more and more of a lottery.
I could not take part in a debate such as this without commenting on how the quantity and availability of NHS-provided long-stay care has been severely cut under the Government. Since 1992 alone, the number of NHS long-stay beds in Scotland has been cut by nearly 4,000, but the number of long-stay beds in private nursing homes has dramatically increased. Of course, the Government claim that long-stay institutional care is being replaced by community care, but, all too often, NHS long-stay beds have been replaced by private ones for which care is means tested. Some are in nursing homes of 120 beds or more, and such homes are not suitable for the care of people with dementia. The Government's own guidelines recommend that homes providing continuing care for people with dementia should have no more than 30 places.
As I have said, NHS long-stay care free at the point of need has been replaced by means-tested care. I shall give a couple of case studies which clearly demonstrate the effect of that on families and carers. The first is that of Mr. and Mrs. T from Glasgow; obviously, they do not want to be named. Mr. T is 65 and has severe dementia. He had a professional career, but had to give up work early because of the illness, and his wife gave up her work three years before retirement age to care for him.
Mr. T was admitted to Woodilee hospital last October for assessment, and was discharged to a nursing home after six months. The hospital is due for closure, and he has to pay for the whole of that nursing home care. Mrs. T says that, if her husband could express his views, he would say that he has been let down by the national health service, and that she should not suffer financially because of his illness.
A second example is that of Mrs. S, a 64-year-old widow who has had Alzheimer's disease since 1986. In early 1994, the consultant psychiatrist decided that it was no longer possible for her to be cared for at home because of her increasingly complex needs. Her family were informed that it was possible for her to be cared for on the specialist hospital ward where she had received short respite care. However, some months later, the family were told that their mother's bed was no longer classified as long-stay, and that they would have to find a nursing home for her. That is the reality of what is happening throughout the country to people who require long-stay care for dementia.
The Alzheimer Scotland report recommends that there should be an equitable system for admission to NHS-funded long-stay care throughout Scotland, and, I am sure it would argue, throughout Britain, that is not subject to variations in local criteria but is based on the administration of nationally approved clinical assessment procedures. The Scottish Office's recent circular on the care programme approach delegates that whole area to local level and allows for variations.
Alzheimer Scotland calls for the criteria for admission to NHS-funded long-stay care to include challenging behaviour that requires specialist care and seeks continuing nursing care for people with dementia who need 24-hour supervision. My third example clearly demonstrates what is currently happening in some parts of the country. Tony suffers from vascular dementia, including asthma, and he is cared for, yet again, by his wife. We should never forget the contribution of our nearly 7 million carers, many of whom care for many years for people with dementia.
Tony was cared for by his wife at home, and regular planned respite care was provided for both of them. His condition deteriorated and he was admitted to a general hospital with a chest infection. He was unable to speak, had difficulty in swallowing and was immobile. He was fed by gastric pump through his stomach. The consultant geriatrician decided that his condition did not merit NHS continuing care, and that he should be admitted to a nursing home which should be paid for by the patient. His condition further deteriorated, and the health authority ignored the recommendations of the GP. NHS continuing care was finally provided only when it seemed that Tony's death was imminent.
I shall now deal with the importance of not only the quantity but the quality of care. The Government should do all they can to provide a caring environment for people with dementia that promotes a sense of well-being and maximises a person's sense of independence and dignity. I am sure that all hon. Members want to see an end to the days when one walks into the living room of a residential or nursing home and sees people sitting on chairs with their backs against the wall, staring blankly into space, sitting half asleep or muttering or shouting, with no stimulation and no social care. The only care is for their physical needs.
The Government can end such scenes by acting on the recommendations in the Alzheimer Scotland report. I shall mention a few of the key points.
First, a full, well-recorded, multi-disciplinary assessment should take place when a person enters care, and should be repeated regularly thereafter. That is a rehabilitative rather than a negative approach. Kenny McKie, one of my constituents who is a qualified nurse and the manager of a high-quality dementia care establishment, told me, "Everyone has potential in them. On-going assessment of people with dementia is very important. With good care, you can reverse it in some areas and delay the process in others." I pay tribute to Mr. McKie and to his staff for their work.
The second important issue is a national dementia care training initiative which ensures that staff are constantly trained and that staff levels allow for such training. That key concern was mentioned recently by carers in Lothian in a survey of their views on the quality of care. The third area needing action related to legislation for a unified system of registration and inspection of residential and nursing homes. There is a false division between health and social care, and current legislation is inadequate and out of date.
The fourth essential for quality care is a unified care system, the aim of which is to ensure that people who need care throughout their lives should receive it in just

one setting, and should not be shoved from pillar to post as the dementia worsens. My final recommendation is the call in the report and elsewhere for a full review of the policy on paying for long-stay care. I support my party's call for the Government to set up a royal commission to examine the cost and funding of such care.
The Government's proposals for private insurance are a disgrace. They would benefit only the insurance industry, and would be too expensive for the majority of people. They make no allowance for such matters as broken employment, ill health and small savings, and would do nothing for those who in future may be subject to genetic testing for forms of dementia.
I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute, and I thank them for coming this morning to participate in the debate. Alzheimer Scotland's report is called "Putting Quality First", and quality personal long-stay care is in all our interests. We can never predict when we or a loved one may need it. Universal and equal access to quality long-term care should be part of the foundation of a caring and compassionate society. We never question the importance or cost of providing high-quality emergency services or high-quality intensive paediatric care, so why should we question the importance or cost of putting quality first for people with dementia and their carers?
I hope that the Minister and his Government will act swiftly to implement the recommendations in the report.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on a first-rate introduction to the report, and on initiating the debate. I am afraid that I have not seen the report, but her comprehensive speech covered the very important issues contained in it, and the organisation concerned will be pleased that she has been able to initiate the debate.
I speak from personal experience on this issue. When I first entered this place, in 1987, two things happened: first, I shook hands with the Speaker—not the current Speaker—and secondly I promptly went down with chicken pox, which was extremely painful, and was off for a month, but I do not suggest that the two things are connected. A less amusing fact was that, at the time, my mother, unfortunately, was diagnosed as suffering from dementia. I have worked in social work for many years—all my working life, in fact—and the experience of having a member of one's family on the receiving end taught me some important lessons, many of which were touched on by my hon. Friend.
Fortunately, my mother was in sheltered housing, in a very caring environment, in my local authority of Wakefield. She had reached the stage when she wandered during the night, but the problem was that there were no staff to ensure that she did not. The various elements of community care for someone in her circumstances were in distinct blocks, which never met. She was deemed to be a housing case, but there was no care provision. We had a very caring warden, to whom I shall be grateful for the rest of my life, but she could not get up during the night to stop my mother wandering. The health provision did not relate to the care provision.
I do not in any way knock the people who were concerned with my mother's care, as we received, at the time, the very best possible care, and I am most grateful for that, but it taught me some important lessons.
We should not consider community care in terms of individual blocks of providers. When someone is suffering from dementia—certainly in my mother's case—and their needs cross the various boundaries, the current organisation of that care leaves much to be desired. Because there was no care provision during the night in that sheltered housing block, my mother ended up in just the environment described by my hon. Friend: a lock-up care home, sharing a bedroom with a complete stranger and wandering around the home with other demented people.
The time that my mother spent in that home was the worst period of my life. If I am portrayed as anti-institution, it is because I saw what that experience did to a member of my family and do not want it to happen to others. My hon. Friend put her finger on the point when she said that we must examine the provision that is available now, particularly in the private sector, where long-stay geriatric units are being replaced by large private nursing homes without stimulation or individualised care.
With current Government policy, I am concerned that we seem to have abandoned any element of organisational framework for community care. I make a specific plea in relation to the care of people suffering from dementia. We should think about our responsibility for planning care for people whose needs do not neatly slot into some organisational category of health or social care. In dementia—more, perhaps, than in any other area—people's needs stretch way across such organisational boundaries.
I am sad to say that the organisation of community care has worsened rather than improved in recent years. We have seen the community care changes, but I regret to say that we have also seen the total abandonment of any form of national organisation of health and community care, which is now left to the market. The internal market in the NHS is totally fragmented, and community care is left to individual entrepreneurs to provide what they consider will make the most profit. That has left us with a range of problems that must be urgently addressed.
I recognise that dementia takes many forms and that there are different levels of functioning. It is wrong to categorise people who suffer from dementia. In my mother's case, the illness was progressive and changed over a number of years. At different stages, different forms of provision were required. I am worried that the system is not flexible enough to respond to those changes as a person's circumstances change.
Care provision should relate to individual functioning, but it does not necessarily have to be catered for only within institutional care. I regret that we have returned to the model of institutional care—that, if anybody has community care needs, those needs must be dealt with in an institutional framework. People have seen the explosion in private nursing homes and private care homes, which are growing throughout the country. I would argue against that, as I feel that my mother ended up with a bad deal, not through the fault of the local people who tried to help her but through the lack of thought that was given to the models of care we have.
I shall give one example, from an adjacent constituency. The relatives of an elderly man who had been admitted to a care home with dementia came to me about the problems that he was causing through

wandering from his care home back to the council bungalow where he had previously lived. The elderly woman who lived in the bungalow was disturbed because he kept coming back. As a result, she was prepared to move elsewhere.
The chap came out of the care home and moved back into the bungalow and was given a support package to remain there, because he saw it as his home. He could not understand why he had been moved to an alien environment. The council, in a caring way, adjusted his environment in the bungalow to reduce the risk, to ensure that he did not leave gas taps on and that he was not wandering during the night. His condition was monitored throughout the day, which can now be done through various means. He did not need to be in an institutional setting.
I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend about a continuum of care. We need a continuum that can respond to a person's individual circumstances at any time, particularly in relation to dementia. We must move away from the overwhelming obsession with institutional care, particularly for people who have various forms of confusion and dementia.
Not long ago, my hon. Friend and I were in Norway to study that country's models of care and housing. Denmark passed a law making it illegal to have institutional care. Its models are based on a housing approach. Our models are the workhouse modernised. I am ashamed that, at this point in the 20th century, the old public assistance institution still dominates in our view of what should be offered to people with a variety of needs. Let us normalise our view of care and of how we would like to be cared for. I do not want to end up in a wall-to-wall geriatric situation staring at people with similar problems. I want to live in a normalised housing environment as long as I can. We can increasingly make such provision.
We must establish a proper organisational framework that reflects the new boundaries of community care. The social/nursing care divide went by the board years ago. It is nonsense to retain rigid organisational boundaries between the NHS, local authority, nursing and social care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) knows well my view that our party should review its policy on the connection between local authority and NHS provision. There should be one body in charge of community care. As long as a divide remains, some people will fall between the two factions and not be helped. My hon. Friend knows where I am coming from, and I know where he is coming from, but I hope that we may meet in the middle and agree a just policy that satisfies our respective views. The new organisational framework must address the models of care I have described, increasingly to embrace the housing model and how it can offer people a far more civilised deal.
I will conclude, as I am being looked at by my Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) is a caring Whip, who concerns herself with community care and has a good track record on that issue.
My final point reinforces what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West said about the Government's recent announcements on private insurance. Their message is that any problem in old age is for the individual, who must ensure that he or she has the right insurance policy—that one must look after number one, because the state will not provide. That is


not good enough in relation to dementia. We must reinstate our belief since the introduction of the welfare state in the 1940s that we have a collective responsibility to care for people with needs of the kind that my hon. Friend described.

Mr. David Chidgey: I want to draw the Minister's attention to serious allegations that health and local authorities are misinterpreting their duties and powers in law, in the provision of long-stay care for dementia sufferers.
I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), last November about the case of my constituent, Mrs. Valerie Richardson. In March 1995, Mrs. Richardson's mother-in-law was diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Her consultant advised that she should be discharged from hospital into a nursing home. Mrs. Richardson asked whether the NHS would be providing a bed, and was told—rightly in my view—that her mother-in-law's needs came first and that Mrs. Richardson should not worry about costs until her relative was settled.
Without Mrs. Richardson's knowledge, or her consent as the person with power of attorney, social services became involved, and threatened court action to place a charge on her mother-in-law's property. Mrs. Richardson, as many people know, is not a woman to be bullied. Fourteen months later, her mother-in-law continues to be cared for in hospital by the NHS while she awaits a proper home care package. She has not joined the 40,000 pensioners who in the last year alone have been forced to sell their homes to pay for care. As a result of Mrs. Richardson's dogged stand, the health authority and social services face court proceedings challenging the legality of their actions.
Two points are at issue. Health authorities and local authorities stand accused of exercising powers outside the law. Perhaps more serious, by those actions clinicians, health administrators and social workers are at risk of charges of criminal negligence for carrying out such instructions. That risk exists in the case of clinicians for abrogating their responsibilities; and in the case of administrators and social workers, for assuming responsibilities for medical care for which they are unqualified.
The Under-Secretary wrote to me in January to inform me that, under section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1977, health and social service authorities have a statutory duty to work closely together. I replied in detail and at length in March, pointing out that the various Acts dealing with national assistance, welfare services and community care are open to contradiction.
In particular, under the National Assistance Act 1948, local authorities are barred from providing services or accommodation to meet any medical requirements. Those are defined as the responsibility of the NHS, and include a duty
to provide the treatment of people with mental illness
and
to provide those services free of charge".
However, the Residential Accommodation Regulations 1992 allow health authorities to give consent for nursing care accommodation to be provided under the 1948 Act, but with the health authority purchasing the bed. The statutory instruments fail to recognise that the 1948 Act bars local authorities from providing accommodation for infirm patients, including those who suffer from mental disorder—a recipe for chaos and confusion. We are seeing as a result a programme of enforced residential care for pensioners with serious health problems. Health and local authorities are substituting social care needs for health care.
Patients receiving care under health service Acts are reclassified as requiring the provisions of the 1948 Act, which are means-tested. The consequential forced realisation of patients' assets to pay for their care is open to strong challenge as being without legal foundation. Medical treatment for medically disordered patients must under statute be provided free of charge. Social services cannot give treatment, and have no statutory powers to do so.
The misinterpretation of legislation places medical staff and social workers at risk to charges of negligence. The Under-Secretary's reply in January stated:
It will be appropriate in some cases for a health authority to decide, taking into account all relevant considerations including clinical advice and resources available, that it is no longer appropriate to provide a person with NHS care.
The Minister was saying that hospital administrators with no medical qualifications will decide, on the basis of available resources, whether a patient needs continuing medical care, yet the statutory guidelines on hospital discharge arrangements state:
All consultants are responsible for the medical care of their patients. They are responsible for deciding when a patient no longer needs acute care … The consultant will decide whether the patient needs continuing care arranged and funded by the NHS.
Clinicians who abdicate their responsibilities to administrators, and the social workers who implement their decisions, all stand exposed to charges of negligence for acting outside their statutory powers. That view is shared by the health service ombudsman, following complaints about the health commission that covers my constituency. He has only recently issued a stern warning to NHS managers that they should follow doctors' advice when discharging patients from hospital.
I remind the Minister that the ombudsman was called in following complaints against North and Mid Hampshire health commission, which had discharged 24 elderly dementia patients from hospital to private nursing homes. Within two weeks of their discharge, eight had died. Five of the patients who died were discharged against the express wishes of medical staff, who advised that they were too ill to be moved. Doctors were overruled by managers, who went ahead as part of the health commission's plan to close wards for elderly dementia patients as a money-saving measure.
The ombudsman's report makes it clear that the health authority paid scant regard to the statutory guidelines on hospital discharge and that it was "deplorable"—his word—that elderly patients were left without proper medical cover. As a result, the ombudsman has issued a grim warning to any other authorities that are planning to close long-stay hospitals.
Will the Minister please accept, therefore, that there is clear evidence that health and local authorities are acting outside their powers in the provision of care for dementia


patients through ignorance, confusion, or, as the ombudsman has found, by deliberately flouting statutory guidelines? Will the Minister accept that those actions are placing health and social service staff at risk to charges of negligence? Will he review the legislation to confirm that it is the NHS that is obliged to provide medical care for dementia sufferers, or will he introduce statutory amendments making it clear to the House that the Government intend this to be the province of the social services, with all that that implies?

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on bringing this subject before us. Like other hon. Members, I speak from experience. I have a loved one who suffered from Alzheimer's: my late father-in-law Thomas McLay. Unfortunately, he recently died.
He left school at 14 and never had a lazy bone in his body. He worked hard as a miner, and he could have been described as an employer's dream, because, when he had to start work at 6 in the morning, he was there half an hour before, ready to start his shift. He did that whatever time he started. He brought up a family of 13. When the war came, he did his work with the Royal Artillery. I am painting of picture of a someone who asked nothing of any one. He brought up his family along with his wife Margaret. The first time he needed help from the state was when he became an Alzheimer's sufferer.
My mother-in-law, who has also recently died, was determined that Thomas, with whom she had been married for 60 years, would not go into a home, and that she would be the carer in the family. When we talk about carers, the word sometimes rolls off the tongue, but we forget that carers are sometimes aged 70 or 80 years of age, and that they are not always physically fit.
As the Minister knows, I rarely criticise the local authority, but the behaviour of Strathclyde regional council, the biggest local authority in Scotland, if not in the United Kingdom, which is now the City of Glasgow council, in looking after my father-in-law and my mother-in-law, who was a carer, was deplorable. The one thing that we as Members are reluctant to do is fight on behalf of our relatives in case we are accused of putting our nose in, but one day I had absolutely had enough. This man had worked hard all his life. Why should he not get representation from his son-in-law?
I spent half an hour talking to a social worker, and I discovered that she had not been in the family home for 18 months. Things had changed. Sufferers do not one day go along to the doctor, who tells them, "You have Alzheimer's disease." It does not work like that. People start to act irrationally and, often, relatives and the doctor do not know what is going on. It is a gradual process.
Sometimes, as happened with the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), sufferers wander away. In my father-in-law's case, it was a form of paranoia. He was worried about people looking into his home, and that someone was following him. He had a thing about his rent being behind, but there was nothing wrong: his rent had never been in arrears.
For 18 months, a social worker had not turned up. I said to her, "Are you going to turn up?" She quoted the wrong telephone number, and I discovered that she was

reading from the file of a family who lived three miles from my mother-in-law and father-in-law. That was the support we received.
I have another criticism. My wife and her sister rightly said that they were going to support their mother. When they turned up in the home and officials from the social work department were present, they deliberately turned their backs on the two daughters and addressed themselves only to the 80-year-old woman who was the carer.
That is a bad example from an organisation that says that it wants to keep families together and to support them, yet any time that the daughters were showing support, it deliberately turned its back. There must be a policy in that social work department, because not only the social worker, but the occupational therapist and many others acted in that way.
I have heard Ministers with responsibility for social security talk about the support we give to carers, but no one came to me and my mother-in-law to say, "This is what you are entitled to." She eventually received various grants and support from the Department of Social Security, but all that was in dribs and drabs. When we wondered whether my father-in-law would be entitled to death gratuities that ex-soldiers were receiving, he was so far into his illness that he could not remember his old Army number, and that delayed his receiving the very thing he was entitled to.
If we are going to say to people, "Be good carers," as a society we must give support. My mother-in-law kept a bed free in the national health service because she wanted her loved one to stay at home, but she was not thinking in economic terms to save the Government money. By doing that, she saved the NHS and the social work department a fortune, and she received no thanks for doing so.
The one organisation to which I give credit was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West: Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia. A girl there called Isabel Marr was prepared to tell my mother-in-law, my wife and her sister, "This is what is happening to your father, to the man you love. Here are the changes that he will endure during his illness."
As we all know, Alzheimer's and dementia patients tend to catch illnesses quickly. Flu can turn into pneumonia, and they are immediately admitted to hospital. There is a habit in our hospitals, which we all have a great regard for: they give a patient with dementia the strongest tranquilisers that they have in the ward. That is not only dangerous, but insulting to patients. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West rightly stated, although the patient can be suffering in terms of being unable to communicate in a certain way and it is hard to get a conversation going, in many ways they can still think clearly.
Until his last day, my father-in-law could draw and paint beautiful pictures. We have them hanging framed in our home. Certain parts of his mind were still very active, and he needed stimulation, as we all do. However, in the ward for the elderly in the local hospital, there was not even one picture hanging on the walls. I argued about that with the hospital administrator. He asked why the hospital should put pictures on the wall. I said, "Because you've got pictures on your wall at home, so why shouldn't people living in the hospital, as their home, for a week or two have the same amenities?"
I am trying to get across to the Minister and anyone working in social services who might be listening the fact that carers must get 101 per cent. support. If we do not give them that, we will simply be sweeping the problem of dementia and Alzheimer's disease under the carpet. We will be letting other people deal with the problem behind their own doors.
It is ridiculous that, when an elderly person needs, for example, a specially adapted bath in his home, which has been recommended by the occupational therapist, the local authority sometimes says that, although there is a clear case for it, it has run out of money in the budget and that elderly person will have to wait until the next financial year. That is a sorry state of affairs. In this day and age, it is ridiculous that we cannot provide much-needed facilities because of constraints on the budget in a particular financial year.

Mr. Barry Jones: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). The human need in the case he instanced spoke volumes.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) for initiating this debate. I am sure that thousands of people will be grateful to her for doing so. It is telling that this is the first major House of Commons debate on dementia for 10 years. It shows that, as politicians and policy makers, we have failed to meet the challenge that dementia presents.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn, I acknowledge the carers in my constituency who have been so loyal to their parents, partners and friends. Every Member of Parliament who does his work conscientiously knows a small army of carers in his constituency. We know them to be very faithful and disciplined; their loyalty is outstanding. Without a shadow of doubt, they save the British state billions of pounds which otherwise would have to be expended in more formal caring environments.
To its great credit, The Times last week devoted a whole page to Alzheimer's disease and carers. I draw to the attention of the House what Richard Eyre, the director of the National Theatre, said in his very moving remarks:
The personality starts to disappear and with it the humanity and the soul, leaving as if in mockery only the body to breathe and be fed.
He summed up the scene devastatingly well.
The disease is really a Cinderella disease, even though it is a common one, and even though it can strike as early as 30 years of age. I call it a Cinderella disease because only £10 per sufferer is spent on research, while £475 per cancer victim is spent on research. In that context, all credit must go to Alzheimer Scotland—Action for Dementia and the Alzheimer's Disease Society. I know the latter body reasonably well. It has a dedicated and lively staff. It has encouraged the discerning public to accept that the problem will not go away. The society is successful and respected, and it gets fine leadership from Mr. Harry Cayton and the devoted group around him.
I regret that, in recent years, the number of continuing care beds in the national health service has been cut by 40 per cent. I also regret that many more highly dependent

people with dementia are paying for places in nursing or residential homes, whereas 10 years ago they would have been cared for by the NHS free at the point of delivery. I further regret that whether or not people get such care depends on where they live.
I want the Government to end what is in effect a lottery by taking up the Health Select Committee's proposals—first, for national eligibility criteria; and secondly, for a long-term care charter. Unless we follow the recommendations of the Select Committee, the disparities will be such that we will become a nation made up of district health services, rather than a truly national health service. That is the direction in which we are going, and it concerns me greatly.
In Wales, we believe that we invented the national health service. We certainly gave the great Aneurin Bevan to this House—and he, without a shadow of doubt, fashioned what was, and, indeed, may still be, the envy of the developed world by creating the great NHS. The problems faced by sufferers of Alzheimer's disease show that all is not well in our national health service.
The Government have issued a consultation paper entitled "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age". Some people will benefit from what is proposed, but some will not. I am concerned about the heavy role that the Government intend to hand to the insurance industry. The blunt truth is that long-term care insurance is not an affordable option for those who cannot make regular payments into an insurance policy. Many of the less well-off people live in Wales, my country. They have ill health, they have been in and out of work, and they sometimes have caring responsibilities.
Last Saturday, Ruth Davies came to see me in my constituency surgery. During a lengthy discussion, she told me about her mother's long illness—which may have been dementia or may have been Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. In my view, Ruth Davies has shown great filial loyalty to her mother. She cared for her in a very loving way, and that deserves to be recognised. Her letter, which I shall give the Minister, is quite harrowing. It is a summary of the problems of one person, on her own, who faced up to her responsibilities. I hope that, when the Minister reads that letter, he will endeavour to respond and to assist my constituent.
I formally ask the Government to avoid falling into the trap of a short-term solution, which would be fatal for the great challenge of Alzheimer's disease. The Select Committee points the way forward. Above all, I want a system that is equitable, universal and free from age discrimination.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be brief, because I realise that there are time pressures, and I am sure that the hon. Members who have sat through this debate will be interested to hear the Minister's response to the very eloquent requests that have been made. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on the service she has performed for the House and for the community by initiating this debate, and on the sincerity, commitment and passion with which she opened it. These issues should be seriously examined by all hon. Members, and not solely in the course of an Adjournment debate.
Hon. Members have made personal comments in the course of this debate. I also have a parent who suffers from dementia and is in permanent nursing care. People


do not appreciate the trauma that such a situation can cause, not only for the individual but for the family and for friends and relatives. Physically, the parent is still the same person we love, who brought us up, who cared for us and who has done everything possible for our lives. But mentally, they are not the same person. To find that one of our loved ones is suffering from some form of dementia is one of the most psychologically and emotionally draining experiences a person can ever have.
It is good when families are supportive and when friends and relations are there to help one through such difficult times. Unfortunately, many people in our society do not have supportive families, and they are in the most distressing situation. I hope that we can find ways of building up care in the community services to help people who may not be as fortunate as I have been, with a supportive family to see me through particularly difficult times.
Reference has been made to community care in general. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said, hon. Members write off to our directors of social work and to Ministers on behalf of our constituents, but it is only when something happens to us personally that we begin to realise the complexities that are involved in ensuring that there are health visitors, home-help services and general practitioners—all the services involved in ensuring that there is community care.
One of my current worries—I refer the Minister to the excellent series of articles in The Herald this week, which is a part of Dementia Awareness Week—is that, in the local government budget for Scotland for 1996–97, £53 million has been made available directly for community care funding, which
leaves the councils with an increase of only 0.9 per cent. over last year's base expenditure, from which they must fund any wage increases as well as restructuring costs over and above what the Government have provided for.
How does 0.9 per cent. additional funding do anything for community care in our local authorities? That issue should be addressed.
Reference has also been made to institutions. We hate the word "institution", because it conjures up images of a Victorian era institution. I think that the hon. Member for Springburn mentioned Woodilee. That is in my former constituency, and I know exactly what he meant.
There is a stage at which residential, full-time nursing care becomes absolutely essential for many people. I was concerned about people in that situation when I read the Scottish Office's most recent "Statistical Bulletin", and saw that the private sector is growing while the state sector is shrinking. The bulletin deals with community care. I am sure that the Minister is aware of it, so I shall not rehearse all the arguments about the graph that it contains.
I should like to make two very basic points. First, dementia is an illness. It is far too easy to be dismissive and say, "The old lady or the old man is losing their marbles." It is an illness that should be diagnosed. I want fundamental research by the Government into this issue to try to ensure that people do not needlessly suffer from any form of dementia, whether it is Alzheimer's disease or some other aspect of dementia.
Secondly, means testing for people who need full-time nursing care should be abolished. Will the Minister tell us how much money is spent in the administration of means

testing while beds are being removed from our hospitals and nursing homes? It is very strange that people who are now in their 80s—who perhaps lived through the first world war, gave all their commitment, paid national insurance contributions all their lives, who never asked for anything and were led to believe that they would be cared for when they needed to be in their old age—are now being denied that care. They did not have the opportunity of private insurance or anything like that. They paid their contributions and expected to be cared for. The concept of means testing and requiring people to sell their homes to pay for their care is absolutely despicable

Mr. Alan Milburn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on securing this extremely timely and important debate. I also pay tribute to all hon. Members who have taken part. They have spoken with a depth of compassion and understanding that properly reflect their involvement in care issues. Finally, I pay tribute to the Alzheimer's Disease Society, which does such an important job in Scotland and across the United Kingdom in campaigning on dementia issues.
As hon. Members are aware, Alzheimer's disease and dementia are chronic and degenerative diseases. In 25 years, it is estimated that approximately 1 million people in our country will suffer from dementia. As we have heard, the cost to individuals, their families and their carers is immense. The bill to society is also huge—an estimated £1 billion per annum in England. There is currently no known cause or cure for Alzheimer's disease, and it is one of the most serious medical challenges facing our society.
We live in an aging society. Increased life expectancy is certainly one of the great achievements of this century, and brings with it the potential for a richer and more fulfilling existence for each of us. But age-related illness and disability, particularly dementia, pose a serious threat to the realisation of the potential for healthy aging.
Yesterday I launched a new centre on aging, which will focus new research efforts on understanding and preventing the major causes of chronic ill health in older people. Created through a partnership between two of the north's great universities—Newcastle and Manchester—it will be a world leader in formulating new approaches to the treatment of diseases such as dementia. That such concentrated scientific and medical efforts are taking place in our public sector institutions to tackle an enormous social problem should be a great source of hope. I hope that the centre receives the support it deserves from Government.
A part of the centre's focus will be on developing more effective care delivery systems for elderly people. People with dementia are likely to be the major users of long-term care services in this country. They are also on the front line of the debate that is now taking place on the future of long-term care. That debate is long overdue. In some ways, it is very odd that the debate has not happened before now. Britain's elderly population have, after all, been around for a very long time—long enough for any competent Government to have planned for the challenge of their care.
The problem is that the Government have not done that planning. The elderly, their families and their carers are angry, and for very good reason. NHS disinvestment from


continuing care has produced a redefinition of responsibilities between health care and social care. Continuing care, free at the point of use, has been all but rationed out of our national health service. Indeed, a report on psycho-geriatric continuing care beds published by the Alzheimer's Disease Society in 1993 showed that some health authorities had disinvested to such an extent that they provided no NHS beds at all for people with dementia.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Milburn: I am sorry; I do not have time.
Elderly people who now have to sell their homes—there are an estimated 40,000 such cases a year—are rightly furious because they had fondly believed that the taxes they paid covered care from the cradle to the grave. Instead, as we have heard this morning, all too often those people are shunted backwards and forwards between health authorities and local authorities which are desperately trying to divest themselves of the responsibility of care.
Worse still, by passing the buck to individual health authorities to decide what services should be available to elderly people, the Government have created a lottery in long-term care provision. The ADS survey of draft health authority eligibility criteria for continuing care, which was published just a month or so ago, found incomprehensible criteria and unacceptable variations in access to services. Quite simply, under this Government, where a person lives determines the care he receives and the price he pays. Such a lottery should have no part to play in our national health service or in any civilised system of community care.
Instead of tackling the mess they have created, the Government are in effect telling the public that we have a chaotic, perverse and unfair system of long-term care: "How can we, the Government, make you, the individual, pay for it?" The Government have got the starting point wrong—they are asking the wrong question to get the wrong answer. We believe that the debate has to begin with a much more fundamental question—what services will people need in their old age? Asking that different question is likely to lead to different answers.
First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West rightly pointed out, we know when and where population change will occur. The so-called demographic time bomb is not going to explode tomorrow. Its impact is being felt incrementally over several decades, so it is a change for which we can all plan. With dementia, for example, we know that there will be a steady rather than a dramatic growth in the number of people who will suffer from Alzheimer's and related conditions.
Secondly, the raw facts of change do not take into account the benefits—or the potential savings—that can flow from allowing elderly people to benefit to a much greater extent from preventive, rehabilitative and convalescent health programmes, so reducing the need for high levels of care, and delaying the onset of frailty.
Finally, I deal with a recurring theme in this debate. Providing new national mechanisms to ensure a continuum of care services among health authorities and

local authorities could end the waste of time and money that currently bedevils the delivery of long-term care for elderly people. It is those people who suffer when health authorities and local authorities tussle over resources and responsibilities. That is why we are committed to new enforced national mechanisms to speed up co-operation among health services, social services and, crucially, housing services. The latter are all too often the forgotten partner in the family of community care services.
We want a continuum of care made available for the individual. That is especially important for people with dementia. The onset of dementia is very different from its terminal stages, so care needs will change over time. It is vital that services on the ground are equal across the country, which is why we support the Health Committee's call for a national framework that specifies eligibility criteria for long-term care to define what the NHS, as a national service, is to provide.
Our aim is straightforward. We want a national health service in which access to care is a matter of right, not chance. We want a national long-term care charter so that people know what they can expect from health services, housing services and social services. We want to end the market in the NHS, to remove the perverse incentive for hospitals to discharge patients too rapidly. We have called for a moratorium on the closure of hospital beds, because the closure programme has gone too far.
The NHS has continuing bed responsibilities, but it has other responsibilities, too. That is why we will seek a new role for convalescence, where rehabilitation, recovery and respite services not only help ease the transition between hospital and community but provide more help for carers whose needs must also be met. The ADS's "Right from the Start" report identified almost half the carers looking after people with Alzheimer's as being more than 70 years old. That matter was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). We have made a good start with the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, but it is only a start—we still need further changes.
Quality is the key challenge facing all providers of care. We want all care to be of the highest standard. Standards must be subject to appropriate scrutiny, which is why we want to bring all community care services—public and private, residential and domiciliary—within an independent regulation net. Several of my hon. Friends have expressed concern about the disturbing trend towards larger institutions. We shall be looking to define new standards, and, in particular, we want to examine whether quality of life in care homes is being compromised by economies of scale.
The reforms I have outlined will deal with the insecurity felt by elderly people about their future. The aim should be to allow people the security of knowing that a broad choice of services will be available when they grow old and to allow them to plan for old age by defining where the boundaries lie between provided and paid-for care. That certainty is what elderly people want; it is what their carers and their families want, and it is what they deserve.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on having secured this


debate. People who suffer from dementia and those who tirelessly care for them deserve our understanding and support: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) who congratulated the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) on introducing the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 which substantially improved matters.
This debate is a welcome opportunity to restate the Government's and our personal commitment to making certain that people suffering from dementia receive the highest quality health and social care, which they need and deserve. In a moving speech, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) described his personal experiences.
Although this is Alzheimer's Week in Scotland, we must keep the needs of those suffering from Alzheimer's and dementia and our responses to them at the forefront of our minds all the time. I agree that large impersonal institutions are not the ideal surroundings for long-stay care, especially not in respect of the social aspects. The aim is to provide care in smaller, more homely settings, and to improve the opportunities for social stimulation.
Of course, community care planning involves health boards, local authorities and others in joint planning and a joint response to a continuous assessment of need. The aim is to reflect local needs and circumstances and to replace outdated institutional care with care that meets existing needs and will continue to do so.
The hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and for Wakefield highlighted the need for quality of care. Inspection teams should ensure that all homes have structured day activities for their residents. Teams can carry out unannounced visits to ensure that necessary stimulation takes place.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) raised the case of the Richardson family. It would not be appropriate for me to go into the detailed circumstances, but I stress that we have set out very clearly in England and Scotland the procedures that should be followed in arranging the continuing care of any person who has been in hospital. I would have expected those arrangements and procedures to be followed in that instance. The Under-Secretaries of State for Health, my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Battersea will be responding to the hon. Gentleman, whose correspondence will be studied closely.
The hon. Member for Springburn made certain criticisms of unsatisfactory activities in the social work department. Those matters should be taken up with the director of social work. We have of course introduced a formal complaints procedure to examine alleged unsatisfactory care, and have strengthened the procedures.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) raised the important issue of research funding. I am happy to confirm that the Scottish Office chief scientist's office is always happy to consider and fund research proposals in that area. Similarly, the Department of Health will look sympathetically at any proposals. In Scotland, we provide significant funding to the dementia services development centre, which carries out research. That centre in Stirling was set up in 1989. We provide it with a core grant of £185,000. It provides information, development assistance, training and research to service planners and providers.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) mentioned funding. Funding of authorities reflects their lead role in planning and purchasing community care services. Councils in Scotland have received £662 million in community care resources this year—an increase of £41 million on the previous year. I say to the hon. Member for Darlington that expenditure on social care for older people has been increasing by an average of 9 per cent. in real terms for the past 15 years, from about £2 billion in 1980 to £7.3 billion last year.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the Government have made adequate funds available, the question is not so much one of funds as the use of them? Is he aware that Essex county council increased its funding from £89 million in 1992 to £192 million today, but continues to misuse those resources by sending young thugs on safari holidays instead of providing proper levels of care? Essex county council is Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to hear that resources are being correctly applied with regard to community care in the area to which my hon. Friend referred. It is important that resources should follow the patient and that an agreed strategy is in place before any patient is moved. We are keen to make certain that that happens.

Mr. Milburn: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must move on to the points made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, since she initiated the debate.
She quite rightly wants the NHS and local authorities to attach priority to giving dementia a higher profile. We have commissioned work to develop a framework for mental health that will include consideration of the special needs of people with dementia, and, of course, their carers. We shall be consulting widely on the draft framework in the summer. Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia will be fully involved in the process. I should mention in passing that, for the few weeks that I was responsible for the community charge, I exempted those suffering from Alzheimer's. That was my only act of consequence while I had that responsibility.
I should like to refer to the report of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West and her recommendations. The report was a very useful and constructive contribution, and we have referred it to a working group on residential care in Scotland, which will be reporting in a few weeks. I should like to go through some of her excellent points.
She called for better training for inspectors. We are examining that. The Scottish Office group will make recommendations in about three weeks, which are very likely to be to that effect. She called for better training of home staff. Inspectors check to ensure that staff are appropriately trained for the client group for which they care, especially dementia sufferers. Such provision has been in place for some time.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West called for a joint local authority and health board team. The Scottish Office group is considering that recommendation. It is encouraged by the good practice guidance, and is likely to support a mandatory position. She called for an


independent inspectorate, and the Scottish Office group is considering the need for it. She called for the encouragement of best practice. Consultation on nursing home national standards is being issued this week. The residential homes working group is examining the need for standards and, as I mentioned, will be reporting shortly.
The hon. Member called for better funding for more inspectors. The fee charged should cover the need. There should be no bar to increasing the fee if required. That should make the operators self-funding. The fee is, of course, paid by home owners. She called for the publishing of inspectors' reports. There is no bar to that, and I would encourage such openness. She called for tougher guidance on staffing levels. Inspection teams must ensure the appropriate level of staff for the number and dependency of residents. She also called for tougher enforcement of standards, including quick closure where necessary because standards have not been implemented. The working group is examining simplifying and speeding up the procedures. The system must be fair to owners and clients alike.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West called for national standards and work is under way on it. She called for the registering of sheltered housing and domiciliary care. I understand that that is likely to be one of the group's recommendations. She called for an urgent review of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938. The board is examining the need for that and we shall be happy to consider amending the law in the light of the review. All her points have either been implemented or are in the process of being dealt with. I assure the House that I shall act speedily as soon as I receive the working group's recommendations.

Ms Rachel Squire: I want to make it clear to hon. Members that the Minister is referring not only to what I have said in this debate about the Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia's report, "Putting Quality First", but to a report that I conducted last year on registration and inspection procedures for residential and nursing homes in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to confirm that we either have acted or are acting in relation to the hon. Lady's points, which have been helpful.
The number of beds has been referred to. Where NHS continuing care is required, it will be paid for in full by the NHS regardless of whether that care is provided in an NHS hospital or by another provider under contract with the NHS. An assessment of needs by local authorities and health boards aims to ensure that provision will match needs. From 1 April, there will be a new two-stage appeals system for patients who want a review of the clinical aspects of their care, including discharge decisions. The hon. Member for Darlington—

Ms Squire: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about eligibility criteria.
A framework has been established in Scotland and England for eligibility for NHS continuing care based on clinical factors. It would not be possible to set very detailed criteria nationally, because it would stifle local flexibility to meet the needs, and, owing to the historic variation of provision, would cause immense disruption.
To give an indication of the size of the problem, about 600,000 people suffer from dementia in the United Kingdom. That total is predicted to rise to 800,000 by 2000—one in 12 of the population aged over 65. We therefore have to make certain that we have in place a strategy and services that appropriately meet needs.
I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the sterling work of the Alzheimer's Disease Society, Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia, and all the other groups working in the field. We want to ensure that the reforms involve making certain that local authorities should have responsibility to work closely with health and housing authorities in a co-ordinated way to develop joint community care plans and co-ordinate services at the strategic level.
Local authorities now have greater flexibility in how resources for community care should be deployed to meet the needs of individual groups. We believe that local authorities throughout the country have used that greater flexibility to provide care that is better tailored to people's needs. In developing a full range of local services, the voluntary sector has and will continue to have a very important role in the provision of services—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Primary Schools

11 am

Dr. Robert Spink: Education is our key political problem. If we get education right, we will create the means to resolve all our other difficulties. We shall generate the wealth to invest in the health service and the means to give pensioners a better deal. Better education gives more people a stake in society. If we get education right, there will be fewer disaffected people therefore there will be fewer law and order and environmental problems. If we do not get education right, however, we shall be firefighting on all other fronts.
After national security and the defence of our sovereignty and democracy, education is our key political problem. Primary education is the key to success. If we get the foundation right, the rest will be easy. If we do not, whatever we do at the secondary level and however much money we throw at it, our efforts will be wasted and we will never overcome the problems.
There are three essentials that children must have when they start school as rising fives. The first is discipline. Without a sound framework of discipline, they will not enjoy their time at school and they will not benefit from it. So discipline is an absolute prerequisite. Secondly, we must give them joy in and enthusiasm for learning. Teachers and parents are responsible for that. Thirdly, we must give them knowledge and the skills that they need to apply that knowledge, particularly the skill of reading, to which I shall return in a moment.
I shall set out today that too many children are failing to reach standards appropriate to their ability and their age; that funding is a contributory factor in this failure, but it is a relatively minor one; that parents also have a part to play in that failure, but their part is anything but minor; and that teachers and schools also contribute to the failure.
We should start by addressing the methods. The Government decided what should be taught when they fixed the national curriculum some years ago. It has settled down nicely although it still needs some fine tuning. We must now focus on how to teach. Teachers and the unions will resist us, but they resisted all our reforms when we introduced them, yet they now accept many of them.

Mr. Mike Hall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon in his speech. If he is so concerned about the quality of teaching and education, can he say why the teaching profession and academics accepted the recommendations of the James report in 1972?

Dr. Spink: I shall come to that point later in my speech.
I want to premise my remarks by praising teachers. The more we do that the better, as the majority of teachers are dedicated, professional and caring people. They are teachers because of the vocation, not because of the vacation. They deserve our praise and recognition for their efforts and their integrity. Head teachers such as John Poskitt of Montgomerie school are dedicated and achieve excellent results. Diane Conway of Hadleigh junior school was given an excellent Ofsted report which praised the enthusiasm, conscientiousness and caring attitude of the

staff. It was typical of Ofsted reports on schools in my constituency. I must premise all my remarks by saying that we should thank our teachers for their dedication.
Having said that, let me establish that there is a problem with primary standards. Sadly, it is not difficult to support that assertion. The difficulty is in selecting which evidence to adduce, as there is so much available.
I turn immediately to reading. Last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said that reading was the essential skill. He was so right. If education is the foundation of Britain's future success and primary education is the foundation of good overall education, reading is the foundation of primary education. This must therefore be the pivotal issue in the debate. Unless and until children acquire proper reading skills, they cannot progress in other subjects.
I take no joy in reporting that many primary schools and primary teachers are failing to teach good reading skills. Regrettably, there is substantial evidence of that phenomenon. The Ofsted report on the teaching of reading includes in its main findings the following comments:
Good teaching was found in about a quarter of the lessons observed in each year group. Far too many children were found, however, not to be making the progress which they should. The main reason for this is weak teaching.
That could not be a clearer statement. It needs no embroidery or explanation from me. The report related to 45 inner-London primary schools but its implications are far wider and apply generally throughout the country. The problem is national and widespread. Bad reading is now endemic within education.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend said that the problem was endemic. Happily, Lancaster has been exempt from that epidemic because we retained the 11-plus. We still have our grammar schools. Therefore, all the primary schools in my constituency have been obliged to aim for a certain standard. They never went mushy as did schools in the rest of the country. They all retained a high standard in reading and basic skills and they are now where others are seeking to be and they are getting excellent Ofsted reports.

Dr. Spink: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend make that point. Later in my remarks I shall be addressing the part that selection, streaming and setting have to play. In Lancashire, there is a model—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not in Lancashire.

Dr. Spink: I apologise to my hon. Friend. In Lancaster, there is a model that we should be looking to follow. The selective system also works in Southend and Dorset.
Sadly, last year's national test results for 11-year-olds illustrated the failure of primary schools. They showed that 52 per cent. of children failed to achieve the expected standards at national curriculum level 4 in English. Of more concern, the Basic Skills Agency reported that one third of children who had not learnt to read properly by the age of 10 would never recover from that failure.
The recent Ofsted report found that almost half the schools it covered were not meeting all the requirements that the national curriculum programme of study for reading sets out. That failure should not be tolerated, and


the fact that it has been is an indictment of local education authorities, schools, teachers and politicians. We should not put up with it; we must do something about it.
The Ofsted report can be a positive mechanism for improving standards in primary education. It exposed poor teaching methods, poor leadership and poor monitoring of teachers' performance by head teachers, and provoked a defensive response from weak head teachers, teachers and self-seeking trade unions. But the report should not be treated negatively, as it could be the catalyst that we need to burst the politically correct cycle of acceptance and tolerance of inexcusably low standards.
Those who are seeking a panacea from nursery education will be disappointed. If schools have children every day for 12 years and still cannot teach 20 or 30 per cent. of them to read and leave 20 or 30 per cent. of them functionally illiterate, then bolting an extra year on the front by nursery education will not solve the problem. It does not need much common sense to understand that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I may be lacking in common sense, but I firmly believe that nursery education is crucial, particularly for children from deprived homes or remote areas. Nursery education is crucial to a child who lives in an isolated farmhouse and who may have no other child to talk to, and he will never lose that advantage.

Dr. Spink: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, who makes a sound point. But I think that she is missing the point that I am trying to make. If we simply bolt on an extra year of nursery education and continue for the following 12 years to pursue the current child-centred project methods that are failing to teach children to read, write and be numerate, we will not solve the problems. We must change the whole system, as we cannot simply inject quality by one year of nursery education and ignore the rest of the system's failings.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: indicated assent.

Dr. Spink: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend now agrees.
Having established that there is a problem, I shall address its causes. Funding has a part to play and, as society develops, we should direct a greater proportion of our national wealth towards education and training. However, increasing spending on education does not necessarily result in improved standards, and there is often an inversely proportional relationship between the amount of money spent per pupil and the standards provided. That is the case even in areas that appear to be socially comparable, such as areas within Essex—but I will not embarrass my colleagues by going into detail.
I want to address the distribution of the total available education funding between the phases, as I believe that the primary phase does not get an appropriate share of the overall resources. I have long held that view, and fought on the issue in Dorset in the 1980s and in Essex in the 1990s, where I started a campaign to shift funding towards primary education in 1991. I carried out a Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting statistics analysis and revealed that Essex primary schools were among the worst-funded of the 106 LEAs. A report in the Yellow Advertiser on 29 January 1993 said:

Spink launches new attack on primary school funding.
MP Dr Bob Spink has returned to the attack about the underfunding of local primary schools which results in children of two different year groups being put in the same class … Rick Morgan, spokesman for Essex Primary Heads Association, said, 'We are fully behind Bob Spink in his stand to get better funding for Essex primary schools as they are the poor relations compared with other counties, and are also badly off when you see the gap with the funding Essex gives to its secondary schools.
I was delighted to receive the support of Rick Morgan, who helped me in my fight and helped to change society in Essex for the better by forcing Essex to shift funding. His hard work will pay dividends, and he is to be congratulated. A letter on 13 May from Paul Lincoln, the director of education in Essex, illustrates the change that we forced upon the Essex LEA. The letter states:
the funding of primary schools is a priority for the County Council".
It was not a priority until Rick Morgan, myself and other good people forced the council to make it a priority.
The letter goes on to say:
the total primary school budget has increased in each year, between 1992/93 and 1996/97 … there has however been a significant increase in the number of pupils in primary schools and whilst the expenditure figures … indicate a 31 per cent. increase in funding, when compared on a per pupil basis this reduces to 23 per cent.
I am proud to have initiated the move that brought about that change. The figures do not indicate that there has been any starvation of funding from the Government or Essex county council, and I congratulate both of them. However, I insist that they go further.
Emboldened by my success in Essex, I took the matter to the Education Select Committee, of which I was a humble member. I initiated an inquiry by the Committee into the relative funding of the phases and, in July 1996, the Committee published a report entitled "The Disparity in Funding Between Primary and Secondary Schools". There is insufficient time to go into the details of that report, but it was excellent and I recommend it to all my colleagues.
The Government response to the report was published in October, and its conclusion stated:
The witnesses with secondary school backgrounds regarded the disparity between the phases as being relatively small, but not so small that it could be adjusted without serious disadvantage to secondary schools. Those with primary school backgrounds and most of the neutral witnesses thought that the disparity was too large and should be reduced. We are persuaded that the latter are right.
I was greatly gratified that the Government were persuaded, and the response went on to specify:
Any real terms increase in funding that becomes available, from either national or local government, for example to fund additional pupils in the system, should be distributed disproportionately (as compared with historic practice) in favour of primary schools. In addition, there should be a small annual shift between the sectors, especially with regard to administrative costs. All primary schools should be enabled to benefit from the latter changes.
I quoted from the conclusion extensively because it is important that the Department for Education and Employment does not forget that commitment.

Mr. David Nicholson: As a current member of the Education Select Committee, I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on gaining this debate—thereby raising the priority of the subject—but on what he has achieved in primary school funding. Will he tell us


whether the Government have carried out their intentions? Before he concludes, will he reiterate that there is no point in having vast resources unless one has the right teachers and the right teaching methods? In that respect, I draw the attention of the House to the amazingly interesting "Panorama" programme the other night.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes a number of extremely important points, and I will deal with them in my speech. I also intend to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) in an intervention at the beginning of my speech. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) about the progress that the Government have made in shifting funding towards the foundation of primary education. If we get it right there, it will be cheaper to fund the latter stages.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We must include nurseries.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend continues to ride her own hobby-horse.
It is important to keep changing the balance of funding between the phases of education. It is wrong that, in some instances, we spend double the amount on a 15-year-old that we spend on a six-year-old, because it is more difficult to change the attitude and improve performance of that 15-year-old, whereas it is easy to change the attitude of six-year-olds and to instil in them the discipline and skills that they need. It is essential to build that foundation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not just the discrepancy between the 11-year-old and the 15-year-old that is of concern but the discrepancy between the nearly 11-year-old and the just turned 11-year-old—that gap is enormous. My hon. Friend may be aware that that discrepancy is bad in Lancashire, but unfortunately discretion lies entirely with the county council. I do not believe that it is possible for the Government to lay down the law unless they can manage to influence dreadful councils such as Lancashire.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes another good point. The report of the Select Committee on Education on disparity in funding considered the jump between year 6 and year 7 and made some recommendations about it. I recommend my hon. Friend to read those recommendations, because she will be gratified to find that her views are supported by the Committee. It is interesting to note that Japan does it the other way round and spends more per pupil on primary children than it does on secondary children. Perhaps that offers a message for us.
It is important to get the foundations right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, funding is not the essential problem. I accept that we must address that issue, but it is not the key to resolving the problem of low standards in schools. My hon. Friend has already told us the key to that.
Parents are much more important than funding. A child's outcome in education is critically dependent on his parents' attitude, involvement and motivation. That

correlates positively with success, whereas a parent's indifference correlates with failure. I am not aware of any formal research into that problem, which would be difficult to undertake, but I would be pleased to know of some. Common sense dictates that parental involvement is more important than almost anything else.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend is agreeing with me again—I am grateful.
It is difficult for me to see how politicians can encourage more self-reliance and understanding among parents. Often today's parents are the product of failed socialist progressive methods. They are victims of the politically correct systems and attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s that have hung around for far too long.
Parents have the key responsibility for their children's education. Many do not understand that fact. They have the key responsibility for anything concerning their children. They bring their children into the world and they are responsible for their behaviour, education and even their diet—not us. They think that we are responsible, but we are not. Teachers do not have the key responsibility for children's education, nor do the schools, the LEAs, the Government, the Department for Education, and Employment, or I. Parents have that key responsibility. But it is the fashion to resist accepting responsibility. Today many people try to shift responsibility to the state; they blame it for everything. That does not wash. I do not know how to break that problem, but I know that break it we must. We must promote self-reliance and reject the nanny state. We must reject bigger government in all its forms and seek smaller government.
I have no solution to the problem of promoting parental involvement and responsibility, but we have provided solutions to another key problem of maintaining standards in schools and of teaching. The Government have introduced excellent reforms. We gave control back to schools, governors, parents and took power away from the state and the LEAs. We devolved power to those directly concerned with their children's education. We performed the ultimate act of devolution and democracy, and it worked. The local management of schools gave financial control to every school but Labour resisted it.

Ms Estelle Morris: That is not true.

Dr. Spink: The hon. Lady must accept that it is true. The schools resisted it and LEAs resisted it, but not now; they now see that it was right. I remember well when LMS was introduced in Dorset when the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors who sat opposite me resisted it fiercely.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Where are the Liberals?

Dr. Spink: I must tell my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Liberal spokesman on education, is upstairs in Committee. He courteously apologised to me for his absence before the debate, and I respect that. He has a job to do for education in Committee.
Going grant-maintained gave schools management control. We need many more such schools and we must find the means to increase their number dramatically. GM status means that schools are prised away from the dead hand of extensive bureaucratic—and, too often, politically motivated—LEA control. We imposed the national curriculum, which has set out a clear set of entitlements to skills and knowledge for every child at each key age. We have established a common national set of standards and we have tested and measured achievement against them. We have now ensured that no child need unnecessarily fall behind, because we can now monitor his progress and report it to his parents.
We also set about measuring teaching quality through a system of inspections using registered inspectors. We have published the results so that education has become publicly accountable. We trust parents, employers and communities with the key information about their children's achievement, but Labour does not trust parents and the community with that information. We trust them and we have empowered them, but Labour would take away that power and hand it back to its band of local Labour activists. We know who I and my constituents would prefer to control our children's education.
We have now begun, finally, to tackle the problem of teacher training. With hindsight, that should have been among our first reforms, not our last, which we should have tackled in 1980. The Teacher Training Agency has been established for 18 months. It is still developing its role and working on a clearer statement on teaching skills. It should move fast and it should be starting to flex its muscles to force change, where necessary, in teacher training colleges.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There again, my constituency is singularly fortunate because our local college, St. Martin's university college, has just been given four excellent ratings on its training. It is quite outstanding, and it makes a difference—that is why we have such a lot of good teachers around our way. Once they come to Lancashire, they do not want to leave. They go to St. Martin's and they are beautifully trained. Those student teachers are doing a wonderful job in the classroom; so, once again, we are singularly fortunate.

Dr. Spink: I read about St. Martin's just last night, and I wondered whether to mention it as an example of good practice that should be repeated elsewhere. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has done that for me.
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has said that Labour wants 15,000 bad teachers to be sacked. He makes the time-honoured mistake of attacking the symptoms when he should be attacking the cause. Ineffective teacher training colleges should receive the bulk of our attention.

Mr. Greg Pope: Mr. Woodhead said that 15,000 teachers should be sacked.

Dr. Spink: I agree that the chief inspector said that, but I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield agreed with him.
If certain teacher training colleges fail to improve and to drop their politically correct progressive ideology, the TTA should close them down and their accreditation should be withdrawn. We should start that progress quickly.
It is not enough, however, to tackle the problem of teacher training colleges. Just 20,000 teachers qualify each year, but 400,000 teachers work in our classrooms every day. All of them need to train and improve constantly, as we all do. I welcome the fact that the Government have made available £400 million for in-service training, but we must ensure that that money is used wisely.
I welcome the 13 literacy centres set up by the Government to improve standards. I also welcome the HEADLAMP scheme to support newly-appointed head teachers. The Government have introduced these and other improvements, which are needed because the task of reforming education is desperately difficult as well as important.
It is fashionable to say that teachers suffer from innovation shock and that they should have no more change for a time. I reject that argument. There is some truth in it, but teachers, like the rest of us in the real world, must change. The world is changing fast and moving forward, and if we do not change we shall be left behind, and so will the teachers. They must change or fall behind.
We cannot wait to do what is right. For every year we wait, a year of our children's time is wasted at school because they are not making the progress they should. Young Tommy and young Sophie cannot redo their year 6 at school because the teacher has got it wrong. If the teachers get it wrong, that opportunity is gone for the rest of little Tommy and little Sophie's life, so we cannot delay.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Talking about people being reluctant to change, it was interesting, in "Panorama" on Monday night, to hear a headmistress who had not been in favour of whole-class teaching who then started it and found it such a huge success that she and her staff now advocate it to other schools. It has made a startling difference in that school. That shows that teachers can change if they see the results.

Dr. Spink: I agree with my hon. Friend. She, like me, does not advocate traditional methods only because it is fashionable. I did so in the 1980s, and was ridiculed. I did so in 1991, and was blasted in the local newspapers, before I became a Member of Parliament, as being out of control. I said that teachers used to be one of the top professions, rated alongside doctors, dentists and accountants, but that that was no longer the case because they were not acting as professionals—sitting in Levi jeans and baggy sweaters on the corner of the desk and not teaching the children, allowing the children to learn at their own speed and following child-centred progressive methods. I was ridiculed and laughed at for saying that.
What I now find pretty hard to swallow is hearing Opposition Members, not laughing at me, but pretending to agree with me. But they really are still advocating the socialist ideology that has submerged education in an execrable process of levelling down. That is what socialism is about—levelling down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, Labour opposed selection, setting, streaming, testing and the publication of results.


Labour betrayed generations of children by its socialist Plowden project-based ideology. We need traditional methods; we need whole-class teaching; we need phonics, which contribute to the accuracy, fluency and confidence of children when they read.

Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the history of the Labour party's position on this matter. Perhaps I might be a little more charitable to Labour. Labour Members appreciate that the children of their supporters, who do not necessarily grow up in a family with a reading environment, are being let down by some of these progressive teaching methods and the absence of whole-class teaching. We should welcome the evidence on the "Panorama" programme that some elements of the Labour party, such as Dagenham, which is a Labour-controlled borough—perhaps new Labour—are beginning to see the sense of reform. I imagine—my hon. Friend might like to explore this—that this will open up new divisions in the Labour party between those who realise that modern methods are wrong and those who will resist to the end any attempt to replace them.

Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend is wrong. There is no such thing as new Labour. It is a con trick. It is a complete and utter fraud on the electorate. I hope that the electorate never have to find it out.
As my hon. Friend says, it is important for children to have books in their homes, so perhaps he would explain—I am sure that no Opposition Member will—why Labour-controlled Essex county council this year cut the library book fund by an unprecedented, massive, disastrous 25 per cent. That will not teach children to read. Labour sends kids down the video shop—that is what Labour is all about.
We need more selection at school and class level. Mixed-ability teaching, which was a socialist levelling-down mechanism, has failed. We have now understood that we should be ruthless in driving it out. It betrays the weaker child as well as the stronger. Labour has not really understood that. It would return to its old ideology and would be the puppet of the unions and the teachers' producers' influence if it ever came to power. It will not, because the country is not so foolish.
Labour tries to give the illusion that it accepts what I am saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton suggested. It claims to have undergone a Damascene conversion on education, as in all sectors, but we should not believe it for a moment. Labour's instincts are still driven by the politics of envy and its education policy can be summed up by the expression "levelling down". That is what Labour is about. Its words are warm, but they are dangerous. Labour would damage your children's education.
Labour claims that class size is very important. It is not. The Office for Standards in Education, with which I agree on this point, found that class size was
only important for infant pupils.
Its research was based on the evaluation of 200,000 lessons. It was reliable and valid. Ofsted found that the effectiveness of teaching has greater influence on pupils' achievement than class size.
Of course, some unions with vested producer interests do not agree. What is new? Labour wants to destroy choice and diversity. It would scrap our grant-maintained

schools and make them revert to the status of foundation schools. It would place them, again, under the dead bureaucratic hand of the local education authority and its political placemen. It would scrap selection—along with child benefit, student grants and so on, but I do not want to stray off the subject.
Even Labour now knows that that would reduce standards. Labour Members show us that they know that because their party leader, their Front-Bench health spokesman and many other Labour Members have taken for themselves the benefits that we provided through choice and diversity. I congratulate them—they were absolutely right to do what they did—but I find their hypocrisy breathtaking. They seek to secure for their children the benefits that they seek to deny to everyone else. That is indefensible.
Labour's policy was best summed up by the Secondary Heads Association, which stated that Labour's recent education policy was
simplistic … bland … will not raise standards … is poorly thought out … uncosted … short on ideas … lacking in detail … an uncomfortable combination of the naive and messianic".
Those words all appear in a Secondary Heads Association publication. I get the feeling that the Secondary Heads Association does not like Labour's education policy. It is right to reject it, because it is a sham.
We need to continue our reforms. We obviously need to improve teacher training, and to do so faster than we appear to be doing at the moment. We need to inform parents and educate them, and to focus them on their prime responsibility for their children's education.
We need to drop the Plowden socialist-based child-centred methods that have devastated education in primary schools for 30 years, and adopt the so-called traditional methods. In doing so, we must bear it in mind that those methods were foist on us by socialist dogma. We need to test and publish all the results that we can, even though I know that the Labour party will resist it. We need to bring forward the concept of value added as soon as possible because, without measurement, we cannot even start to control standards. We must continue to increase the proportion of funding in primary education as opposed to secondary education. We need more discipline in schools to make them happier and more productive places for everyone.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that a test for youngsters soon after they entered primary school would give those in deprived areas a much better chance? I have a particular school in mind, which does an excellent job, but that it is not apparent from the results. If children were tested at five and then again at seven, we could see what the school had added. Often, it is extremely good. I believe that we need another examination.

Dr. Spink: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what progress has been made towards establishing value added measurements, because they are important. It should be possible for us to provide value added information to parents.
In my constituency, we need to provide pull as well as push for primary schools. By that I mean that the secondary sector must be enhanced in order to provide incentives for the primary sector. Thereby, for the next few moments, I intend to bring my remarks into order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in order throughout his speech and I hope that he will stay that way.

Dr. Spink: I give formal notice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we must be granted a specialist technical school—other constituencies have them and Castle Point does not. We need at least one. We must have a sixth form facility for Canvey Island. I will seek to raise those subjects in the near future if I may.
All schools owe a debt of gratitude to Chris Woodhead, the chief inspector of schools. He has done society a great service by exposing the problems in education and it is typical of the socialists that 50 Labour Members signed an early-day motion calling for his resignation because he blew the whistle. It is the sort of socialist antediluvian, shoot-the-messenger reaction that we have come to expect from Opposition Members.
We need Mr. Woodhead to look at moral education and guidance in schools, particularly primary schools. A good start would be to include in every inspection report—I do not think that it happens now—a section on the school's achievement, in quality as well as quantity, in delivering the statutory acts of collective worship and religious education which must be broadly Christian-based and which many schools are not achieving.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I regret having to mention the hon. Member for Bath in his absence but, as he is unavoidably delayed, I have no alternative. He suggested in a pamphlet that we should abolish religious education in schools as well as the collective act of worship.

Dr. Spink: That is another silly Liberal Democrat policy which ranks alongside legalising cannabis.
I am sure that you will be appalled to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, during a visit to a primary school in my constituency, when I asked why, during the service, they had sung only politically correct hymns about yellow buttercups and had made no reference to traditional hymns, to our saviour Jesus or to Christianity, I was told that they did not like to "indoctrinate" the children. I could not believe what I was hearing. We must ask Chris Woodhead to address that problem.
I do not accept that there is no time for moral guidance in our schools. I accept that there are often practical difficulties getting all the children together in one place at one time. Those difficulties must be addressed within the national curriculum. However, we need to find time to give moral guidance as well as academic skills because an articulate young thug is just as objectionable as a stupid young thug. Time must be made to give meaningful moral guidance, both structured and unstructured, and I hope that teacher training colleges and the inspector will address that.
It is worth listening to businesses and what they have to say because they have a valid stake in our primary schools. For example, the finance director of AssiDomän,

Mr. Simon Redman, believes that we need more linguists and engineers. He feels that we could greatly improve our export performance if we could speak foreign languages more fluently, and I agree with him. He believes that the best time to start learning foreign languages is at the age of six or seven, or even earlier, which is when they start on the continent. That is why they are so much better than we are.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will rejoice with me at the fact that Ripley St. Thomas school in my constituency has just been made a specialist language centre—one of only two in Lancashire. That is an incentive to all the primary schools in the area to improve their languages.

Dr. Spink: I am delighted to hear once again of progress in my hon. Friend's area. It does not surprise me. I agree that we should find more time for languages.
Mr. Redman also said that we must improve the status of engineering, technology and science. The best place for that is in the primary school. We need to educate primary teachers to understand and value those key wealth-generating professions. Too often, they are put behind the doctors, dentists, accountants and solicitors, and they should not be so denigrated. They are equal, if not superior, professions. Teacher training colleges must address that as well.
As part of their jubilee celebrations, pupils at Montgomerie county infants and junior schools in my constituency are planting a time capsule on Monday 1 July. The special plastic capsule was provided by the European Nature Conservation Council, which has set up a nationwide scheme. [Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) say, "Hear, hear," when I mention a European institution. I am surprised to hear him say that, because it made me raise an eyebrow.
In 25 years, 200 buried time capsules throughout Britain, including that planted by the excellent children of Montgomerie county school, will be unearthed. I shall ask the head teacher, John Poskitt, whether a copy of this debate can be buried in the capsule.
I wonder whether, in 25 years' time, when the capsule is dug up, we will have solved all our education problems and be making the right investment in education for the benefit of our children and our society. I truly hope so.

Mr. Ken Eastham: The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) has been waffling on for 47 minutes about so-called standards and I must question the content of the end of his speech. He suggested putting a copy of his speech in the time capsule, but it would be better to put the hon. Member in and never mind his speech.
We all desire high standards in education and on occasions we have to listen to Conservative Members attacking Opposition Members as though we do not care about education. That is an insult. In the early part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that we could not just throw money at education. That could never be said of the Conservative party, which has done anything but that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I must


put on the record again that, as he knows, expenditure per pupil since 1979 has gone up by some 50 per cent. in real terms—a record of which the Labour Government prior to 1979 would have been proud.

Mr. Eastham: Later, when I have developed my remarks, I will take the Under-Secretary of State to task about the so-called big expenditure by the Conservative Government.
Standards are not just about examination results. We need good standards for school buildings and to provide the right equipment for children's education. Month after month, we experience Conservative Members talking about standards and about examination results. They never talk about standards for children who are handicapped or children whose first language is not English. They talk about the top few. It is a fact of life that some schools will never get into the examination charts, but nevertheless a good job is being done in those schools by the teaching profession.
Outrageous attacks have often been made on teachers, and we heard some more today. It is no wonder that teachers become demoralised when they have to suffer the sort of attacks that we heard in the previous speech. The teachers can do little about those attacks because they cannot stand up in the Chamber and take hon. Members to task. The teachers depend on some of us, who are not educationists but are interested in a fair deal for the teaching profession and for the kids in schools.
If the hon. Member for Castle Point does not know, I can tell him that teaching is often seriously under-resourced. I remember the Education Reform Act 1988, because I was on the Committee that considered it. Months after the Act came into force, schools still did not have the books and materials that they needed to fulfil their obligations under the Act. That was not the teachers' or the children's fault: it was the fault of under-resourcing by the Government.
When we talk about schools and achievement, we should consider every aspect of education provision, including learning conditions. Many schools, not just in my city of Manchester but in many other cities, are in such a poor state that if they had been in industry the Health and Safety Executive would probably have closed them down. Some of the schools should be condemned.
The Under-Secretary would be disappointed if I did not take up the points that he made and I will give the House some examples of the situation in many schools in Manchester. Many other authorities have the same problems, but I have more details about Manchester. We have had 17 continuous years of a so-called caring Conservative Government who supposedly give education a high priority. When I went to see the Under-Secretary of State last year with the chief education officer and some politicians to present the case for some realistic funding, the hon. Gentleman claimed to have spent more money. But many cities have not smelled much of that money in their authorities. Expenditure has often been weighted towards well heeled and better-off authorities and the direction of funds has been jaundiced.
Instead of waffling, I wish to comment on the situation as it really is. I do not want to make a pretty speech for 45 minutes but actually say nothing. I was so concerned about the schools in Manchester that I wrote to the Health

and Safety Executive last year. The Minister claimed that expenditure had increased, but the HSE's letter to me stated:
Inspectors in this Area have become involved on a number of occasions when parents, teachers or governors complaints have been received concerning structural, electrical and other safety aspects of school buildings. To date we have not found it necessary to take enforcement action since the Local Authority and governors have been aware of the problem and willing to take appropriate action, mindful of their duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act to ensure the safety of staff, pupils and visitors to school premises. In general structural safety matters are the clear responsibility of the Local Authority.
In the event of our finding a dangerous situation and the Authority or governing body not being willing to take appropriate action, the use of enforcement notices would be considered. It is not possible to enforce remedial work to a dangerous part of a building as the employer has the option of taking other equally effective measures to ensure safety which may include preventing access to any unsafe part of a school. This has happened in a number of cases in Greater Manchester.
The Director of Education has been made aware of our concern in correspondence following visits to several schools by inspectors.
Rightly, safety is the responsibility of the local authority and if the authority does not take some action, the HSE will issue an enforcement notice to close the school. The action that local authorities have had to take is to put kids in buses for a 20-minute ride to other schools. The authorities have never had the money to deal with problems—for example, to make the school windows watertight—when the HSE drew problems to their attention.
I have a report from last year, entitled "Expenditure on Education Premises and Equipment in Manchester—Some Facts and Figures", in which the Under-Secretary may be interested. If he wants to make a note of the figures, I will give him a chance to get his pencil out. The report states:
Estimated annual requirement to improve and maintain buildings: £50 million.
DFE allocation 1994–95: £12.9 million".
The authority needed £50 million, but the allocation was £12.9 million. The Department for Education and Employment also put a cap on spending so that the local authority could even not spend that amount. It spent only £5 million. The report continues:
Estimated expenditure needed over next 4–5 years to bring schools and other establishments up to a satisfactory standard: £500 million.
We have a legacy of an accumulating need for spending. Year after year, there have been cuts in funding and allocations. After 17 years of continual cuts, a massive problem has built up. I worry about where the next Labour Government will get the hundreds of millions of pounds needed to cope with the neglect by the Conservative Government.
I have another report, entitled "Manchester's Crumbling Schools", although I emphasise again that the problem does not affect only Manchester. It gives some basic facts about the standards in schools. It states:
The estimated value of Manchester's school buildings and associated furniture and equipment is £630 million. Over the last few years the Government has approved less than £1 million each year for general repairs and improvements … To bring schools up to a satisfactory standard £500 million needs to be spent".


Another part of the report itemises some of the defects, because it is not always a case of putting a new roof on a building—although, God knows, we need plenty of those. The report states:
In many schools substantial items of engineering equipment and installations, such as heating systems (boilers), electrical wiring and fire alarms have exceeded their economic and/or serviceable life span of 15 to 20 years and need to be replaced as part of an on-going programme. The Department of Education and Science (DES) Building Bulletin No. 70 (1990) states that the economic life of commercial boilers is between 15 and 20 years.
Some of the boilers are listed; the report states that 61 schools have boilers that are more than 25 years old and that some of them are more than 40 years old. They are in Victorian buildings. There are 40 schools with boilers aged between 20 and 25 years, and 291 boilers require to be replaced. In winter, when it is snowing or raining, everybody in the school may be freezing because the boiler is not working. Hon. Members smile, but that is hardly a good way to raise standards. Would it put kids in a good condition to improve their reading and writing? Would it be good for the teachers to be freezing in the corner? Do you think that standards should include such matters?

Dr. Spink: rose

Mr. Eastham: If you want to intervene, I will gladly give way.

Dr. Spink: Of course we must look after the fabric of our schools. Would the hon. Gentleman care to predict whether his Front-Bench spokesman will promise to spend extra money on education above the amount that we are spending?

Mr. Eastham: I promise that we will make a better job than your Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the convention that all remarks are addressed through the Chair.

Mr. Eastham: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but sometimes hon. Members make such silly asides that one becomes outraged.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is why remarks are addressed through the Chair.

Mr. Eastham: I do not think that the hon. Member for Castle Point intervened through you, Madam Deputy Speaker. He intervened directly on me. The convention should work for hon. Members in all parts of the House and not just for Opposition Members.
If you want to improve standards—and you keep on professing that you do—you have to put your money where your mouth is and start spending on schools. You have to give them good working conditions. Some schools in Manchester are Portakabins with holes in the walls. They have no heating and are rat infested and you are doing nothing about it. It cannot be said that it is up to a Labour Government because Labour is in opposition. For God's sake, the Government have been in power for

17 years. [Interruption.] The Minister makes a seated intervention which, of course, was missed by the Deputy Speaker. It was directed to me

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not aware of missing any intervention.

Mr. Eastham: In that case it looks as though you have condoned the Minister speaking to me. Perhaps it is all right to make such remarks, but on our side we cannot make them.
The Minister's little aside was about LEAs, but where do the Government come into these matters? What is their part in the formula? Are they not responsible for spending taxpayers' money on education in the cities? What are you collecting taxes for if you do not disburse money in the interests of education? The hon. Member for Castle Point spoke about the high priority of education. We are paying a great deal of tax, and a fair proportion of that ought to be directed to education.
When I met the Minister, he was very kind and he finally sent me a letter which stated that the Government had finally agreed that two schools would have some assistance. There was £233,000 to Manchester local education authority in recognition of its education capital expenditure needs in 1995–96. As I have said, we need £50 million a year and we have a growing problem that requires £500 million, but that is the sort of response that we got. We are grateful for it, because it will affect two schools, but we have 250 schools.
No one should think that standards can be improved by demoralising teachers by saying that they are not up to it. I accept that one or two teachers may not be up to it, but one or two hon. Members are not up to it either. The teaching profession, like the House, covers a broad spectrum. There are some incompetent hon. Members and some have sleaze as part of their upbringing in this place; hon. Members are a cross-section of the population, and the same applies to teachers. I am not defending anybody who is not up to the job. Nevertheless, if we want to improve standards for schoolchildren, we must make provision for them. That means providing decent, warm, watertight schools with good teachers and support from the Government instead of constant attacks.

Mr. David Amess: I apologise for not being here for the start of the debate. I hope that the Whip will note that I was listening to proceedings in the Select Committee on Defence. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for not hearing his opening remarks, but I got the flavour of his speech and thoroughly enjoyed it.
In the four minutes remaining to me, I should like to reflect on the two main Opposition parties. I became a Member of Parliament at precisely the same time as the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. I stand by exactly those matters on which I was elected in 1983, but those two party leaders seem to have changed their views on a range of issues.
There is some irony in my personal circumstances in that my family's education was attacked by both the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. The attack was led by a former Labour Member, Mr. Arthur Latham, who for a time was the leader of Havering council, which is the


council that the Minister is under. I was criticised for sending our eldest child to a non-selective, non-grant-maintained, single-sex school. There are none in Basildon—the school was outside my constituency—and the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties behaved disgracefully. The House can imagine my disgust when some months later I learned precisely what the two leaders of the Opposition parties were up to. Last Thursday, the Labour and Liberal Democrat alliance lost control of Havering council.
Last year I visited every primary school in my constituency and we ended with a meeting with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I was proud of the way in which all my head teachers conducted their discussions with the Secretary of State. We shared views on many issues. There are many single parents in my constituency, and when we debate standards in education it is quite wrong for any hon. Member to expect schools to bring up our children for us. I take my hat off to those parents who, for various reasons, are on their own and struggling against all the odds.
I suppose that all Members of Parliament draw on their own circumstances. My education started four decades ago, in the London borough of Newham, and I shall reflect on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). All the classes were of 50 or more, in poor Victorian buildings. As an individual, I owe everything to my teachers, and salute them for their efforts, as we could spell properly, write clearly and could certainly command the rudiments of basic arithmetic. I am not sure what conclusions I would draw from that. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point mentioned languages. That is fine, but I hope that our children can master English first, as occasionally there is an over-emphasis on computers.
I was a councillor in Redbridge, which has high standards in education. I aspire to stand as a candidate in the Southend, West constituency in the next election. I have visited every school in Southend, West over the past year, where the circumstances are rather different. In Southend, we have selective education and our young people take 11-plus examinations. In the time leading up to the general election, I shall want to know where the candidates who will stand against me stand on the important issues of selection in the borough of Southend. Southend, West has the largest primary school in Essex, Westborough, with 680 children. There is a real funding problem to be addressed, but I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the debate, which has been thoroughly worth while.

Ms Estelle Morris: I congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on securing the debate, since when—I am sure that it is just a coincidence—the newspapers have been full of primary education matters.
I agreed with the hon. Gentleman on one point, but my enthusiasm for his speech ran out thereafter. He said that we have not given primary education the priority that it deserves in recent decades. I whole-heartedly agree. The blame lies not only with the Tory Government but with past Labour Governments and councils. It is an error that everybody has made. We say that the years spent in primary education are important, and we know that unless

we get it right at five, six and seven, it will be much more difficult to get it right at 11, 12 and 13. Despite that, we consider it unacceptable for sixth-form classes to have more than 15 students, when children are well motivated, yet it is tolerable, apparently, to have classes of more than 30 at age five and six.
Historically, the teachers with the best qualifications were always guided into secondary education. The Government must act on the recent work carried out by the Select Committee into the disparity in funding between secondary and primary education. As a former secondary school teacher, I know that everybody in education, no matter in what area their interest lies, accepts that primary education has been the Cinderella part of the service, and it is high time it secured the resources to which it is entitled.
I agree with the hon. Member for Castle Point that there is much good going on in primary schools. For many children, it is the point in their lives when their love of learning is born, when anything that they achieve thereafter can be traced back to a good relationship or experience in a reception class. All of us know the precious enthusiasm that a child has when he or she starts school. Some of us are saddened and wonder where it has gone by the time they start secondary school, but to have the task of nurturing it and ensuring that it grows into a love of learning and to ambition and high aspiration is one of the joys for those who choose to spend their teaching career in primary education. To the teachers who get it right and thus give the children a good start in life as a result we owe a debt of gratitude as a nation.
Having said that, it would be silly to have a debate on primary education and not express concern about some of the real problems in that sector. The evidence that we are falling behind is overwhelming, from reports from the Office of Standards in Education, from international studies and from the Basic Skills Agency, which reports that one third of inner-city children are starting secondary education with a reading age at least two years behind their chronological age. What worries me most is that the gap between those who do well and those who do not is wider in this country than anywhere else. It is growing. Even the Prime Minister made mention of it, as recently as two years ago. We must address that problem. The crusade and the challenge is to bridge the gap so that everybody can have a chance to do well.
That is where I parted company with the hon. Gentleman for Castle Point, because the rest of his speech seemed to fall into the old Tory trap of saying that it was everybody else's fault except theirs. He said that it was the fault of parents for not taking responsibility, that it was the fault of socialists, labour councillors, the Teacher Training Agency, and information technology—all and sundry, but it was not the fault of his Government. I do not know why a party seeks power other than to try to achieve change and to do the things that it wants to do. The corollary is that, at the end of their period in power, the Government are judged by what happens.
The Government must be judged by what has happened in primary education, because they have played their part in that process. The national curriculum was introduced, withdrawn, introduced again, withdrawn again and then reimposed. Testing was introduced, taken out, introduced again, then changed, then delayed, taken out and introduced again. It has been chaos and disaster. During the debate in the Tory party about what knowledge is


acceptable in the national curriculum—whether it should be testing this or testing that—teachers were trying to teach and pupils were trying to learn, with constant stops and changes to the curriculum and changes to the way in which they should be assessed. That is not the stability that everybody needs, particularly those in primary education, if they are to do well.
Also under the Conservative Government, class sizes have risen. Figures announced last week show that 40 per cent. of our children at primary level are now in classes of more than 30, and more than 17,000 are in classes of more than 40.

Mr. Robin Squire: rose

Ms Morris: The Minister will excuse me if I do not give way, as the opening speech went on for 48 minutes, which limits any interventions.
There has been no systematic attempt at research into teaching strategies that will work. We have moved from shock report to shock report. At every stage, the Government have announced, in the words of Lord Henley last month, a number of additional measures. It is more than that. It is about sustained research and planned work into building on good practice, seeing what goes right, spreading that information to other schools and ensuring that they have an opportunity to do that as well.
I can see the problem arising again with Conservative Members who have talked about the "Panorama" programme, which I saw, too. It was absolutely fascinating, and there is much that we can learn, but if Conservative Members think that what we saw in the programme, in Dagenham or abroad, is a return to something that existed pre-Plowden, they are badly wrong.
In class teaching pre-Plowden, children were not engaged in conversation and answering questions. Teachers did not interact with children in that manner. They did not involve. They told children what to do and the children sat quietly. What we saw on "Panorama" was a very exciting strategy. It took the best of the whole-class approach, in which it is easier to monitor children, but involved children in the learning at every single stage. That is the excitement of it.
If Conservative Members think that it was moving backwards, they will make a mess of it, as they have of so much in the past 17 years. It was new and it was exciting. The next Labour Government will build on that by making the research that exists in bucketloads in education institutions and local authorities available to all teachers, so they can develop improved teaching and learning systematically—not in a dogmatic way or to fight their own political corners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) was right to stress the need for good school buildings. I was a pupil in a Manchester school when my hon. Friend was a member of Manchester city's education committee. The physical surroundings in which I was educated did credit to that Labour administration, working in conjunction with a Labour Government. I did not experience the surroundings that my hon. Friend described as existing in Manchester today.
I think sometimes that Conservative Governments seek power as a platform to criticise others. Labour seeks power as a platform to work with others, to raise educational standards for all our children. We will reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to no more than 30 pupils. We will build on things that the Government got right—reading recovery and section 11 funding for ethnic minorities—but have chosen to withdraw. We will make good research evidence available, and we will ensure for the first time in 17 years that all the essential partners in the education service—central Government, local government, schools, teachers, parents and governors—are united on a common agenda and speak a common language, to make certain that children in primary education get the best possible start by learning the basics, mastering information technology and having a well ordered learning environment.
That cannot be achieved in the fragmented and divisive way in which the Government have been behaving. The next Labour Government will at long last ensure the partnership that will accomplish the task that every parent in this country wants completed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Having given a little time to others, I hope that the House will understand if, unusually, I do not give way to interventions—as I normally do. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on securing this important debate, and I am grateful to him for providing the opportunity to discuss primary education.
I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue on the part of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) when she said that above 40 per cent. of classes number more than 30 pupils. I dare say that she meant to say that the figure is 29 per cent. I believe that the hon. Lady was including classes of 30 pupils, which account for a significant proportion of all classes. The figure of 29 per cent. is less than that for 1979, and the number of classes of more than 35 pupils has halved by comparison with 1979.
I completely challenge the assertion of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) that resources are at the heart of standards. The hon. Gentleman will have read, as I have, many independent reports on schools. Few of them highlight resources, but emphasise instead that good teaching delivers good education, while highlighting how resources are applied. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to be confused by resources. Overwhelmingly, attitudes and teaching style are at the heart of quality teaching.
As to buildings, the figures show that the capital resources made available to schools this year of £700 million are 7 per cent. more than last year. The hon. Gentleman would struggle, as I would, to find another budget area that has increased by that amount year on year. Councils should regard schools as being as important as council offices, town halls and all the other public buildings in their ownership. It is no use councils saying that the condition of their schools is all the fault of Government—they have a responsibility in law and common sense to maintain in good order all the buildings in their ownership.
Primary schools have increasingly come under the spotlight in recent years, and rightly so. There has been speculation about standards, how teachers are teaching


and how much children are learning. I welcome that attention. The effects of a child's first few years in school can stay with him or her their whole education and beyond. The child who leaves primary school reading with confidence, and with basic self-discipline and powers of concentration, is equipped to tackle the academic challenges of secondary school and the wider challenges of adolescence. The child who has only a hazy appreciation of numeracy and who cannot work without close supervision will find secondary school and life beyond the classroom that much harder.
We have done much to ensure that primary education meets pupil needs. We introduced the national curriculum and associated assessment, so that for the first time—thanks to a Conservative Government—parents have a guarantee that their children will be taught the most important subjects and tested on what they have been taught. We have taken steps to find out exactly what is going on in schools. By the end of this term, Ofsted will have inspected nearly 7,000 of our 19,000 primary schools, which is no mean achievement. Primary inspections only started in September 1994. Before then, the average primary school could expect to wait 200 years for the inspectors to come calling.
Ofsted inspections and national curriculum assessment are providing the first ever comprehensive audit of teaching and learning in primary schools, so the debate about standards can move from assertion and speculation to proper consideration of the facts. Inspection and assessment reveal a wide range of achievements. At one end of the spectrum are outstanding primary schools, including those identified in the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector. Those schools, some in extremely deprived areas, achieve high standards and provide their pupils with the best possible start to school life. At the other end of the spectrum, some 90 primary schools have been judged to be failing their pupils. The majority of schools fall between those extremes—they have some good features but also room for improvement.
Last year's national curriculum assessment results for 11-year-olds were disappointing. The Government are taking action to tackle particular problems and to raise overall standards. Where schools fail, the special measures regime comes into play. Primary schools respond well. They generally improve more quickly and need less time on special measures than secondary schools. We will publish primary school performance tables reporting this year's assessment results for

11-year-olds. Parents want and are entitled to that information. The chief inspector has pointed out before that tests and the publication of performance tables are helping to raise standards.
We are funding 23 local education authorities to run projects in primary school improvement. Performance measurement and target setting have been used to great effect in secondary schools, and we want to help primary schools the same way. We will extend the assisted places scheme so that gifted children of primary school age can benefit from the scheme's advantages.
Each of those initiatives and more will help to raise standards, but what matters most is the quality of teaching that children receive each day. Good teachers—and there are many of them—use effective methods to get results. That is as true in the most deprived inner-city area as it is in the leafiest shire school. The Government are determined that all teachers should know what works in the classroom and what does not. We know that children need to be taught—that they do not learn simply by exploration and investigation. The same applies to student teachers, who deserve to be properly prepared to take charge of the classroom.
We have tightened the requirements for teacher training to make courses more practical and relevant. From September, all primary teacher training courses will include at least 150 hours each of English, mathematics and science. At least 50 hours will concentrate on the teaching of reading and 50 on the teaching of arithmetic.
We have given Her Majesty's inspectorate the right to inspect training courses. Those inspections will reveal whether the 68 colleges that train primary teachers are using their time well or whether they are using discredited teaching methods. Reports on colleges are being published so that schools and students will know whether a course is up to scratch.
We are not neglecting teachers already in schools. We have started where it matters most—with the teaching of literacy and numeracy in primary schools. As the House knows, we have initiated 25 literacy and numeracy centres. We have, however, some way to go. I noted from The Daily Telegraph of Monday the comments—I know not whether they are accurate—of Mr. Colin Richards, formerly of the Office for Standards in Education. In criticising the chief inspector, he regretted that the chief inspector
sees primary education as essentially concerned with teaching children to read, to write, to calculate, to distinguish between right and wrong and behave in a sort of disciplined, responsible way".
I should be delighted if all our schools were doing that.

Architects (Insurance)

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am pleased to have secured parliamentary time to debate compulsory indemnity insurance for chartered architects and architects generally, which is of considerable importance. The unfortunate set of circumstances that befell my constituents Mr. Gareth Jones and Mrs. June Jones have repercussions for thousands of people throughout Great Britain. I wish to make it plain that I have nothing but the highest regard for architects as a profession, and I know that their professional standards are among the highest in the world. It is, however, the exception that frequently proves the rule.
In 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Jones purchased a parcel of land for the purpose of erecting a dwelling house—their home. They had saved assiduously to build their dream home in the village of Penmachno near Betws-y-coed in my constituency. It was Gareth Jones's home village, and he had spent many a long year working throughout the United Kingdom and beyond to secure enough capital to purchase their dream home.
In 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Jones began making plans in earnest, and, of course, they had to consider who was going to prepare the plans. Mr. Jones had offers from part-time building consultants and architectural drawers who would prepare all the plans, submit them for planning approval and allow for inspection at a cost of less than £500.
Being mindful of the fact that this was probably the greatest financial commitment that he would enter into, Mr. Jones decided that he should instruct a chartered architect to have added security if "something should go wrong." So it was that my constituent reasonably opted for the services of a chartered architect, despite a fourfold increase in fees. Mr. Jones was happy to pay the extra in view of the transaction's importance to him and to his family.
Mr. Jones consulted a chartered architect, Mr. D. J. Broomfield, RIBA, who practised at Colwyn Bay, Clwyd. Plans were drawn up, submitted to the borough council and approved. Mr. and Mrs. Jones paid Mr. Broomfield £2,000 to include the necessary inspection fees and supervision, which would lead to an architect's certificate. There were mistakes in the plans that were never communicated to Mr. and Mrs. Jones, but, in any event, the building work was commenced in earnest and my constituents were happy to see their dream home taking shape.
Unbeknown to them, however, the local planning authority and building control officer served a rejection notice on Mr. Broomfield, referring to no fewer than 17 problems with the property. Among the problems were water ingress through the gable end, the porch, severe cracking in the plasterwork and inadequate drainage around the property—all substantial items. It transpired that Aberconwy council had written to Mr. Broomfield about all those items, but he must have concealed the letters, and never uttered a word to the builder or to my constituents.
Mr. and Mrs. Jones then found that they were not able to communicate with the architect. Calls went unanswered and letters unacknowledged. Unbeknown to them, Mr. Broomfield was undergoing personal problems, culminating in his taking his own life in January 1993.
The following is a brief list of problems at the property. There was considerable rising and penetrating damp. There were problems on the chimney to the lounge involving the cavity tray. There was an absence of apron flashing. A chimney stack on an outer cavity wall was wrong. The outer leaf and the cavity were wrong. There was evidence of dampness at the reveals, again probably a damp course problem. Window openings had not been completed, and all were lacking a suitable cill to throw water away from the walls. The mastic pointing to the frames had not been carried out.
The porch showed signs of extensive penetrating and rising damp. The damp-proof membrane did not tie into the damp course, which appeared to be below the floor level. The stepped flashing was cemented to the wall, and it was not possible to determine whether a cavity tray was incorporated. There was a lack of gutters. Hairline cracks had appeared in the render, and trussed rafters required additional bracing to conform to British standard 5268. Background ventilation was required to habitable rooms. Mechanical ventilation was required in the kitchen. The ground floor was not insulated, and storm water drainage had not been installed.
Therefore, through no fault of their own, my constituents are in a ruinous position. They have an uninhabitable house with a substantial mortgage and a repair bill in excess of £30,000, which they do not have and which they have no prospect of obtaining. Initially, they wrote to the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom, which said merely that the deceased Mr. Broomfield had been registered by it, under the Architects (Registration) Acts 1931 to 1969, until his death on 8 January 1993. It suggested that Mr. and Mrs. Jones consult a solicitor to find out inter alia whether Mr. Broomfield had professional indemnity insurance, and to consider taking proceedings against the deceased's estate—not a straightforward action. According to my constituents, in any event, the estate was almost insolvent.
I was consulted, and I wrote to the Royal Institute of British Architects about professional indemnity insurance. I was told to contact the widow and ask whether any insurance existed. I then met RIBA's chief executive to register my view that compulsory PII should be introduced urgently. May I draw a comparison with the legal profession? No solicitor is entitled to practise without proof of PII having been paid. As a solicitor, I think that that is both right and proper—I have no hesitation about it. It is costly, but clients are protected and so are lawyers.
With the best will in the world, however, things sometimes go wrong, especially under extreme pressure of work. By the very nature of their work, architects have a higher potential to inflict problems on clients. It is astonishing that a highly regarded body such as the RIBA does not insist on it. I always thought it did. The Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom does not insist on it and, since taking up this case, I have had numerous letters from architects, some RIBA members and others not. Nearly all support my contention, with the reservation that all people engaged in drawing plans for remuneration should be covered by insurance.
On 24 May, the chief executive of the British Institute of Architectural Technologists wrote to me saying:
In the front page article in Building Design of 26th April we were interested to read your comments on the question of compulsory professional indemnity insurance for Architects. As a professional institute in the construction industry we have already introduced mandatory PII for all members who provide services direct to clients. I enclose a copy of our Code of Conduct.
We spent a long time discussing the introduction of mandatory PII but considered that the risk of losing some members who were not prepared to carry professional indemnity insurance was outweighed by the public's perception of Architectural Technologists and what our professional Institute was trying to achieve. We therefore support your view in pushing for compulsory PII for Architects.
I have received another letter from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. It said:
Since May 1992 the Incorporation has placed obligations on its membership generally to carry PI insurance when they are responsible for businesses; although the wording of the obligation is flexible enough to permit those responsible for public sector businesses to provide appropriate indemnity by some other means.
It is important to bear in mind that the provision of appropriate forms of insurance is an important factor in realising this obligation, and RIAS Insurance Services has for the past few years provided a range of PI policies to suit small part-time businesses up to major international practice requirements.
We believe such obligations are a part of a professional approach, and could form a model for others.
However, the provision of PI insurance is not a long-term solution since it runs on a claims-made basis—and the demise of the architectural business, or the death of the architect can therefore leave future clients vulnerable.
The only solution to that sort of problem is to have a project based or building based insurance—a matter which the profession has supported since the publication of the BUILD (Building Users Insurance against Latent Defects).
Although I am aware of the Government's dogmatic objections to regulation, I am also keenly aware of the Government's duty to protect consumers. For most people, such a project is the single largest and most important contract of their entire lives, and they deserve security.
The Minister will know that, in 1993, the Warne inquiry's terms of reference included the following: the need to ensure health and safety and the protection of the environment; the need to safeguard the interests of the consumer of architectural services; and the importance of maintaining professional standards. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, which is currently before the House, is just the vehicle for change to ensure that consumers' interests are protected. Of course, the architectural profession has agreed to lay members serving on its professional body. If we are to strengthen protection for the public, this matter is a core issue that needs to be examined.
While looking at the format and purpose of the Architectural Registration Council for the United Kingdom, I discovered that it has not even touched upon the subject. I find that most disturbing. There is a need to ensure that all people engaged in drawing plans for remuneration should be insured. As I have said, I am not singling out the architectural profession. It has been suggested to me by one correspondent that a BUILD-type insurance protecting both the consumer and the provider should be introduced. I am certainly not averse to that.
Another correspondent, a member of the RIBA, states in his letter:

I am writing to you to lend my support, in principle, to your call for all architects to hold PII … I believe architects have a moral duty, if not a professional duty to be insured, but I am concerned that you appear to single out architects without addressing the problem of `plan drawers' of all descriptions.
Thousands of Building Regulation and Planning Applications are processed every week, which do not bear the designer's signature, mostly from the Black Economy within the Construction Industry and related professions. They are a time-bomb waiting to go off! These individuals are not insured and they certainly do not declare their earnings to the Inland Revenue, which is why they don't sign their work, and when things go wrong they can't be sued.
The way forward, in the interests of fairness, must surely be to insist that all applications placed before a Local Authority bear the name and qualifications of the designer and that all designers show proof of being insured, or, better still, why not promote the idea of single-project insurance cover which protects clients, contractors and designers alike—A LICENCE TO BUILD. Singling out architects for special treatment does not address the problem.
I agree with that statement and, indeed, fully endorse all the comments of that professional gentleman.
We now have at least two solutions—which I find attractive—that could deal with the problem and that would enable people to have security, so preventing a recurrence of the awful calamity that befell by my constituents. I call upon the Minister to give an undertaking that he will urgently consider those solutions and incorporate them in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill.
Mr. and Mrs. Gareth Jones are being sued for possession by their building society. They face ruination. I am sure that many other people throughout the United Kingdom are in a similar position. I sincerely believe that the Government owe them a duty as consumers, and I trust that the Government will not shrink from that responsibility.
The House has heard the views of the profession and the public. The RIBA has begun to move in the right direction since this case has been highlighted. I understand that a professional indemnity insurance policy, tailored for small practices and sole practitioners, has recently been launched by the RIBA insurance agency. As I have said, the RIBA is moving in the right direction, and the Government must now be invited to move in a similar direction. The situation is a calamity for those people caught up in it. This debate may not assist my constituents, but they have been most helpful in the preparation of notes for the debate, because they do not want others to suffer what befell them and have little or no redress.
I ask—indeed, plead with—the Government to move in the right direction. Failure to do so would be an abrogation of duty to our electors, many thousands of whom, through no fault of their own, have been caught in this awful trap.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has eloquently told us of a tragic sequence of events, with a number of tragic aspects, involving his constituents Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who have been the losers. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to join me in expressing great sympathy to them in the predicament in which they find themselves.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there may be some legal consequences of the case, so I do not want to go into too much of the detail. However, I shall certainly respond to the issues that he raised. I note what he said about compulsory professional indemnity insurance for architects. I hope that I can give him some reassurance, but I have to make it clear at the outset that I do not agree that compulsory professional indemnity insurance for architects is the answer.
This case illustrates the sort of problems that can arise when things go wrong with what should be a straightforward project. Fortunately, that does not often happen, but when it does, the problems could be the result of actions, or lack of actions, by any one of a number of people involved in the building process. It is not limited to architects. Any argument in favour of compulsory professional indemnity insurance would apply equally to a number of other trades or professions—builders, for example—who design buildings or supervise building operations. Indeed, it applies to anyone who wishes to design a building on a commercial basis.
The function of building design is not and cannot be protected by law, although the ability to use the title "architect" is so protected. I see no reason for architects alone to be singled out and compelled to have professional indemnity insurance. It would be unfair for architects to be forced to bear the cost of such insurance regardless of their circumstances—for example, they might not be currently practising—and not to impose the same conditions on other building designers. It would also be unfair to potential clients, who would not automatically have that additional protection if they chose someone other than an architect to design their building.
The hon. Gentleman drew some comparisons. I accept that some professions—doctors and lawyers, for example—do have compulsory professional indemnity insurance. I do not consider that necessary or desirable in the construction industry. The Government are opposed to most compulsory insurance as a matter of principle, because of the way it affects the operation of the market.
Perhaps the overwhelming flaw in any compulsory regime is that insurers cannot be compelled to provide cover. In extreme eases, that could even drive professionals out of business. It may also put insurance companies under strong moral pressure to provide insurance, even in cases where acceptance is not commercially sound. While there are some instances—for example, motor and employers liability insurance—where there are overwhelming reasons for a compulsory regime, I do not believe that the same considerations apply in this case.
Compulsory insurance can also cause difficulty for policyholders and insurers. Requiring certain sectors to purchase insurance can weaken their power to negotiate acceptable policy conditions and premium rates. Furthermore, the costs of compulsory insurance could fall more heavily on new entrants and on those who lack a track record, and may therefore add to barriers to entry to the industry.
In raising this issue, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy aims to protect the client in a building project from the results of bad workmanship and design. I certainly support that aim.
Regardless of the insurance position, all clients already have the additional protection of the building regulations. All builders are required by law to build in compliance with those regulations. They are designed to ensure the health and safety of people in and around buildings, and are enforced through regular inspections at all stages of the building process.
Let us consider the issue of legal remedies. Generally speaking—without going into specific cases, for the reasons that I have mentioned—legal remedies are available if things go wrong, and failure to honour a contract can be pursued through the courts. Under statute law, the Defective Premises Act 1972 is particularly important because it requires that work is done in a workmanlike or professional manner and with proper materials, so that, as regards that work, the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed.
The main problem with legal remedies, of course, is the ability of the person who is found responsible to pay to put things right. That is not a new or uncommon issue. The Government have considered carefully possible ways of dealing with defects that come to light after a building has been completed.
In his report "Constructing the Team", Sir Michael Latham considered options for reform of the law of liability for building defects. Among the options was a change in the law to amend the principle of joint and several liability, to liability in proportion to the amount of blame assigned to each offending party. That was considered specifically because of the way in which the cost of restitution of building defects tends to fall on architects.
The Government have since referred the matter of liability to the Law Commission, which recently reported that there should be no change in the joint and several liability regime. The Government are now consulting on its recommendations.
Sir Michael Latham's report also recommended the introduction of compulsory latent defects insurance. He applied that recommendation specifically to commercial, retail and industrial buildings and not to domestic work. However, his view was that, if compulsory insurance was not introduced, the construction industry has a ready method of introducing an insurance-backed warranty regime through the terms of construction contracts. The Government endorse that approach.
The same view is reflected in our response to the Justice report on how to improve the legal rights and practical remedies available to an owner, tenant or occupier of residential premises on which building work has been carried out defectively. One of the report's recommendations was the establishment of insurance-backed warranty schemes, endorsed by lending bodies and backed by legislation.
The Government would welcome such schemes if they were voluntary, but we would find it difficult to accept that particular proposal, because it is based on a statutory scheme. We would prefer trade associations and other organisations in the construction industry to extend existing schemes for improving the quality of building work and protecting the householder against defective building work. As I am sure the hon. Member will be aware, the most notable of those organisations is the excellent National House Building Council guarantee scheme, which now covers about 90 per cent. of new homes.
The Government regard the extension of voluntary schemes to insure buildings against defects and to provide professional indemnity cover as the best way forward.
Most architects are currently covered by some form of professional indemnity insurance. Those in big practices are covered by their employers' insurance, and the same is true of the many architects who are employed by local authorities and elsewhere in the public sector. Academic or non-practising architects do not need to be covered, while those who undertake only the occasional job might take out ad hoc insurance for an individual project.
Some architects practise without insurance. Although the vast majority encounter no problems, we encourage all architects to take out some form of professional indemnity insurance. That must, however, remain a matter for the individual and his professional organisation, and we certainly do not consider that such insurance should be compulsory. The matter should be dealt with in the contractual arrangements between the client and the architect or other building professional. If he wishes, the client may insist on employing someone with professional indemnity insurance.
Since the events to which the hon. Member referred took place, I have been pleased to hear that the Royal Institute of British Architects has introduced a rule that anyone appearing on its professional practice register must have some form of professional indemnity insurance.
Before saying more about that rule, I should explain that there are two main bodies concerned with the regulation of architects. The first is the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom, which is known as ARCUK, to which the hon. Member referred. It is the statutory body that has responsibility for registering all architects. To practise under the title "architect", an individual must by law be registered with ARCUK. As I said, however, there is no protection of the function of an architect, and anyone—registered or not—is allowed to design buildings and to undertake that function.
To be registered with ARCUK, a person must prove that he has the prescribed academic qualifications and practical training experience. There are also provisions for recognition of European Union qualifications and for assessment of overseas applicants. But admission to the register is entirely on the basis of ability to carry out the functions of an architect, and there are no provisions about professional indemnity insurance.
Current legislation will reform the structure of ARCUK and make minor changes to admission criteria. However, the changes to the criteria remain firmly based on the ability of the individual to function as an architect, and do not extend any of the criteria to cover financial or insurance matters. We believe that that is as it should be. The reforms, which gained widespread support during

public consultation, are based firmly on the idea that ARCUK should be a minimalist body concentrating on the core functions of registration and discipline.
The other main body—I say "main" because there are also bodies for Scotland and Northern Ireland—is the Royal Institute of British Architects, which the hon. Member also mentioned. It is the professional body to which about 70 per cent. of architects belong. It has a royal charter, but it is not a statutory body. Its members refer to themselves as "chartered architects". I am sure that the hon. Gentleman intended his proposals to cover not only chartered architects but also those who are registered.
In the past, the RIBA has considered introducing compulsory professional indemnity insurance as a condition of membership. However, it decided against that for a number of practical reasons, not least because many of its members were not practising and it seemed unjust to require them to pay for an expensive insurance that they did not need.
The RIBA instead maintains a register of practices, for which the entry requirements have recently been expanded to include the need for adequate professional indemnity insurance. Entry to the register is entirely voluntary, but a large majority of architectural practices are entered on it.
The register is a major step forward, and means that a member of the public looking for an architect entered on it is guaranteed to get someone who is covered by some form of professional indemnity insurance. Having just heard an account from the hon. Member of the events affecting his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, I must say that, had this requirement been in force when they were first looking for an architect, it is quite possible that they might have chosen someone from this register with professional indemnity insurance.
I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member, and I hope that, in the course of this response, I have been able to set them in context. I certainly understand why he is so concerned about this issue, and I trust that I have been able to reassure him to some extent, particularly on some of the measures that have been introduced by the architectural profession, including those which have been introduced since the events in this case took place.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are concerned to improve design and quality in building, and to remove defects and the need for litigation. We feel that that is best done by voluntary measures in co-operation with the industry rather than by compulsion. We also believe that the reforms contained in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, which is currently being debated in Committee, will be of great help to the architectural profession, and result in a streamlining of the system. I therefore hope that my remarks will have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance in the light of the admittedly tragic experience of his constituents.

Single Currency (Pension Liabilities)

1 pm

Mr. David Shaw: I am pleased to have secured this debate. The question of a single currency and Europe's unfunded pension liabilities is extremely important. I first started asking parliamentary questions on this subject in 1991, when very little was known about it or its possible impact on the United Kingdom. However, the single currency is now on Europe's agenda, and it is vital that any debate should be based on all relevant material and information.
It seems less and less likely that an economic argument can be mounted in favour of a single currency. Indeed, it is worrying that it seems that it is becoming more and more a political venture with few economic facts to support the idea of a single currency. That contradicts the views of the Bundesbank and, I believe, those of the German Finance Minister; nevertheless, it can clearly be said that political arguments are being used to promote the single currency rather than the economic arguments that we were promised. That has serious consequences for the UK and we could have to bear enormous costs.
I have estimated some of the costs and found that the current UK national debt of some £300 billion is equivalent to about £5,000 per person. We have our own unfunded pension liabilities, although, as I shall point out, they are considerably less than Europe's. Our unfunded pension liabilities are equivalent to about £4,000 per man, woman and child in the UK, so our total debt, including unfunded pension liabilities, is about £9,000 per man, woman and child.
If Europe's unfunded pension liabilities were shared equally among all the countries and we had to take on a portion of them, we should have to accept something like £30,000 more debt per man, woman and child in the UK. That would be an enormous burden. I believe that the single currency would lead to our having to pay more taxes to service debts accumulated in Europe and to repay some or all of Europe's past debt.
I was concerned to read in the Financial Times this week that there are signs that Europe is not being entirely honest in its accounting methods. This week France has been shown to have been manipulating the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's report so that certain expenditure cuts were included in the budgetary estimates that it gave to the OECD, although in fact those cuts have not yet been agreed by the French Parliament. Germany is also having difficulty meeting the Maastricht criteria relating to the extent to which Government borrowing and debt increase each year.
The Maastricht criteria are indeed highly selective. They include requirements on debt, but exclude significant liabilities such as the unfunded pension liabilities in Europe. Pension fund debt is just as much a liability as a Government bond, but pension fund debt is often known as the invisible debt simply because it is not in the form of a bond and it has been quantified only in the past five years. It is nevertheless a real debt that eventually has to be paid.
I sometimes wonder why pension fund debt has only recently been quantified. I have to put it down to the simple fact that the software programmes and personal computers were not available to enough people to enable

it to be quantified because it involves a complex and difficult calculation. Now, however, we can quantify previous politicians' promises that were not properly costed when they were made. I am talking about the politicians who made promises to young and middle-aged voters in the 1960s and 1970s. Those young and middle-aged voters did not realise that the promises they received were not capable of being met in the millennium, when the bills would start to come in.
Europe's social security systems are in a terrible mess compared with ours. Demographic changes are against the principal European countries. In particular, France, Germany and Italy are greatly affected. Their politicians made great promises, the impact of which will become very significant from the year 2005 onwards. Already, the financial markets that often deal in currencies some eight or 10 years ahead are beginning to wake up to the implications, and the impact of such promises on the financial markets will become more serious as we approach 2005.
There are few ways out of the problem for the countries of Europe, and the ways out that do exist are politically painful. Many of the countries affected have already shown, through strikes and other actions, that their peoples are not prepared to take on the responsibility of dealing with the problem.
I now give details of unfunded pension liabilities as a percentage of gross domestic product for the three major countries in the European Union. In France, such liabilities are estimated to be at least 69 per cent. of GDP, in West Germany 122 per cent., and in Italy 107 per cent. When examining those figures, we have to bear it in mind that the Maastricht criteria state that the national debt should be no more than 60 per cent. of GDP. I have cited only one estimate of the liability as it was quantified in Europe in 1990. More recent reports suggest that that liability is an even greater proportion of GDP.
In order to consider the issue properly, it might be helpful to put on record a few key terms. We have to get to grips with the implications of terms such as elderly dependency ratios, contribution rates and replacement rates. The replacement rate relates to someone's income when he retires compared with his income when he was in work. We also have to consider the implications of retirement ages and the indexing formula by which benefits are adjusted for inflation. We have to consider all those factors in all the countries of Europe when examining unfunded pension liabilities.
The bottom line is that such calculations enable us to measure the contribution gap, which is the difference between the current contribution levels and the annual liabilities from past commitments, all brought together through discounting accounting techniques to a value at today's level. The International Monetary Fund defines the contribution gap as
the difference between sustainable contribution rate and projected overall contribution rate".
To prepare this speech, I read a number of studies, many of which were not around when I first started asking questions in 1991. The first known study was carried out by the Dutch civil service pension organisation ABP in about 1991. It concluded that Europe's unfunded pension liabilities were about 7,500 becu, or probably some £10 trillion at today's levels. The study was not greeted warmly by European Governments. Indeed, they were so worried by its implications that many argued with its methodology.
In 1993, a study by the OECD examined pension liabilities in the seven major economies. It confirmed that there was a significant problem, but used a different basis of calculation from the ABP study. In November 1993, the Centre for European Policy Studies published the study "The Hidden Liabilities of Basic Pension Schemes in the European Community". Not only does that study confirm the problem, but it shows how civil servants in member states have secured better pensions than private sector workers will ever secure.
Table 6 on page 16 of the study contrasts the pension privileges of Europe's civil servants with those of the private sector. It points out that, at 1990 prices, a French civil servant's pension is worth about £150,000 of capital, a West German civil servant's pension is worth about £230,000 of capital, and a Luxembourg civil servant's pension is worth about £250,000 of capital. No figures were given for United Kingdom civil servants in that table. Those figures show the level of commitments that have been given in Europe to public sector civil servants for their pensions and the impact of that cost on state pension schemes.
The most recent study was conducted by the International Monetary Fund. It is quoted in the current six-monthly report, but I have been unable to get hold of the working paper SM/96/7 of 19 January 1996, entitled "Aging Populations and the Fiscal Consequences of Public Pension Schemes with Particular Reference to the Major Industrial Countries". I hope that that working paper will be published, because it is in the national interests not only of the UK, but of all people in Europe and the world that it should be openly discussed and its implications considered.
I shall quote briefly from the IMF six-monthly report, which contains some information from the working paper, so that hon. Members can realise some of the implications involved. I shall start with good news in respect of the United Kingdom. The IMF says:
The United Kingdom should experience almost no contribution gap'.
For the German pension plan, however, it says something different:
For the German pension plan's net asset position in 2050 to be the same as the initial net asset position in 1995, for instance, a sustainable contribution rate of 13.7 per cent. would be required each year. Assuming average contribution rates remain unchanged at just 10.3 per cent. of GDP over this period, Germany is likely to face a contribution gap of 3.4 per cent. of GDP.
That gap will be faced each year. The Maastricht criteria state that Germany's annual increase in debt cannot exceed 3 per cent. of GDP, yet its unfunded pension liability cost alone is equivalent to 3.4 per cent. of GDP a year.
The IMF goes on:
Countries such as Japan, Germany and France, however, face contribution gaps of nearly 3.5 per cent. of GDP a year. To avoid a further buildup of pension debt over the next fifty five years, these countries need either to permanently increase social security tax collections by roughly 3.5 per cent. of GDP, or scale back benefits by a similar amount, or implement a combination of tax increases and payout reductions of this magnitude.
We already know that German industry is suffering as its indirect pension costs are too high. Europe has reached the limit of increasing social security taxes and other costs that are affecting labour costs. The UK is in a much better position in that area than those countries, and I would be extremely concerned if we took on their debt.
I should say that the United Kingdom is not perfect in that regard. We have made promises to 500,000 teachers, 1 million national health service employees, civil servants, policemen and firemen that are unfunded pension liabilities. Fortunately, because our overall financial structure is better than those countries on the continent, we can probably meet those promises—yet they are costing a considerable amount.
At today's prices, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was recently told in a parliamentary answer, unfunded pension liabilities in the UK are worth about £230 billion of debt. Even we in the United Kingdom have a problem, although the IMF thinks that we are much better off than most. I understand from a parliamentary answer that I received some time ago that, when the Government took office in 1979, public sector pensions cost £2.5 billion a year. Today, they cost about £10 billion a year. Over the next 20 or 30 years, I understand that that could rise to about £40 billion a year.
Why are unfunded pension liabilities a problem in relation to the single currency? Adopting a single currency means adopting a single European balance sheet. Ultimately, one cannot have a single currency without a single balance sheet. That means that we shall all share Europe's assets and liabilities. The liabilities of Germany, France and Italy would no longer relate solely to them, but would be shared in Europe.
European countries could adopt a number of possible solutions. They could try to increase their social security contributions, but, as I said, it seems unlikely that German industry could pay more in indirect taxes. The problems of higher unemployment in Europe mean that fewer contributors are available to pay future pensions. Fewer people in Europe are contributing to their social security systems because so many of them are out of work.
The Europeans could cut their pensions and raise retirement ages. Indeed, the IMF suggests in its six-monthly report that there will have to be
adjustments in benefits and retirement ages, the latter because of steady gains in average lifespans.
It continues:
Modifications could include reductions in the replacement ratio in countries where it is high"—
that means less income in retirement—
and some slowing in the inflation indexing formula. In addition, governments could aim at linking individual pension contributions more closely to benefits—for example, by diverting part of contributions to individual retirement accounts—and at fostering increased personal responsibility for retirement support".
The IMF is recommending everything that the UK has already done. We have gone to the trouble of ensuring that those problems have been tackled, but it is very serious that such problems have not been tackled in Europe. There is a risk that, if we joined a single currency, we would have to take on part of those countries' problems.
All the studies conducted to date show that past pension commitments by European politicians, especially in France, Germany and Italy, are incapable of being met. That means that if those countries had to draw up their accounts on the same basis as British public companies on the stock exchange, auditors would qualify those countries' audit reports and declare them insolvent. Auditors would say that those countries would be unable to meet their liabilities when they fell due.
I should point out that the liabilities are truly massive. They are measured not in tens of millions of pounds, but in hundreds and thousands of billions of pounds. Studies confirm that the UK is probably the best placed country in Europe, if not in the world, on unfunded pension liabilities. They also point out that entering a single currency would mean that the UK would have to give up its competitive advantage, which has been hard earned and is significant from 2005 onwards.
We can also conclude from the studies that the Maastricht criteria are meaningless figures based on false accounting since they do not include the unfunded pension liabilities of Europe. If those liabilities were included, no country would meet the criteria that have been set down.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to be able to contribute briefly to the debate. As he said in his speech, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and I have crossed paths in parliamentary questions on the nature of the size of unfunded public sector pension rights in Britain. If I represented Dover rather than Birkenhead, perhaps my sights would have crossed to Europe, rather than crossing the Irish channel to Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman raised two points of crucial importance, to which we all want replies. First, he spoke about the size of the national debt and unfunded pension debt in Britain. If it is spread out evenly, it represents £5,000 per person for the national debt and £4,000 per person for unfunded pension liabilities. If we have to share the European debt for unfunded pension liability, however, the figure increases to £30,000 per person. The hon. Gentleman properly raised this question: if we have a single currency, how will the Government prevent taxes from being imposed on people in Britain who have already provided for their own pension entitlements, to pay for people in Europe who have refused to do so?
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman was too polite and gentle to suggest to the Treasury Bench the underlying theme of his debate. If the Government only had a grip on their nerve, a sense of humour and some real finesse on the issue, they would be totally committed to a single European currency, but would say that, before we could go down that path, we should have to address the problem of debt. The difficulties of calculation and getting the French, the Germans and the Italians to face up to the size of their debt will probably take us well into the millennium before we are in a position to decide on the terms of debt, let alone how we might proceed to a single currency.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): First, let me thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for introducing such an important debate today. I am well aware of his long-term concern and his in-depth knowledge of these matters, which he demonstrated in his remarks.
My hon. Friend was quite right to say that ignoring the issue will not make it go away, so it is of particular importance to note that there has been considerable work on it, including a number of studies, to which he referred.

No doubt some member countries of the European Community look at them with greater or less favour because of the message they send to those countries.
The Government have consistently behaved in a fiscally responsible and prudent manner over pensions. We have long recognised the effects of demographic and other changes on the financing of future pensions. We have acted early and wisely to forestall pressures on future taxpayers and have encouraged individuals to take responsibility for providing for their future needs while at the same time safeguarding a minimal level of state provision.
The same cannot be said of some of our European partners, although they have recognised the problems that they are facing and have started to take at least some action to deal with what is described quite rightly as the pensions time-bomb. We can help them and there are,some excellent opportunities for the United Kingdom to do so.
Our system of funded pensions is a model of its kind. We have recognised the importance of having a sustainable pension system in place for future generations. The basic state pension is and will remain the cornerstone of pension provision in the United Kingdom. Most people want to look forward to incomes closer to what they have been used to earning when at work, and funded private pensions are the key to that.
Recent work by the OECD and the IMF shows just how successful the United Kingdom has been. According to the OECD, pension payments are expected to cause the national debts of Germany and France to double as a proportion of GDP between 2000 and 2030, on current policies. My hon. Friend put those figures in a more human context, but whichever way one looks at them, it is a very large debt that has to be addressed right now.
The problem is not limited to the European Union—Japan faces the same problems—but the United Kingdom and the European Union are examining problems that affect us all and are the subject of today's debate.
If one looks at the figures in another way, the OECD expects our public expenditure on pensions to peak at around 5 per cent. of GDP, compared with between 15 and 20 per cent. in Germany, France and Italy.
Some action has started to be taken in Italy, Germany and France. Italy approved plans to reform its pension system last year; Germany has set up a commission to review the current pension system; and the French Government plan to supplement the public scheme with private pension schemes. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we are waiting to see whether those proposals manifest themselves in practice, as we have been told they will.
My hon. Friend spoke about the single currency and its effect on unfunded pensions in other countries. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) also touched on that point. My hon. Friend was right to raise a proper concern relating to the national accounts. I, too, am concerned that in some European countries political arguments on a single currency seem to take over from hard-headed economic reasoning.
My hon. Friend is well aware that the Government have said consistently that the United Kingdom will join a single currency only if it is in the national interests to do so. It is because the Prime Minister secured our right to


opt out that Parliament and Government can take that decision at the appropriate time in the light of all the circumstances. It also raises the question how Government debt is defined within the Maastricht convergence criteria for all countries and where unfunded pension liabilities fit in.
Unfunded pension liabilities do not appear in the national accounts. The Maastricht measure of debt, which is the general Government gross debt, is a measure of gross financial liabilities outstanding—that is, liabilities to repay earlier borrowing. It does not include liabilities for other forms of future spending, such as unfunded pension liabilities. Including such liabilities within measures of debt would introduce a number of problems, the main one being that most member states would probably dispute the figures. However, the need to keep their budget deficits below 3 per cent. of GDP will constrain member states with very expensive unfunded pension systems. When those pensions come to be paid, their Governments will need either to raise taxes or to reduce other expenditure to remain within the 3 per cent. limit. Tough decisions need to be made, but they are sensible ones in any event.
Under the Maastricht treaty, member states are responsible for their own fiscal policies and their own pension provision. Member states have the right to determine their own taxation and expenditure plans, but they are also duty bound to ensure that their own plans do not force others to bail them out.
Article 104 of the treaty specifically rules out any prospect of one member state bailing out another. That provision extends not just to the purchase of the debt of other member states, but to offering overdraft facilities or any other credit facilities. That "no bail out" clause

safeguards one member state from the actions of another and ensures that member states act responsibly in keeping their finances in order.
In addition, the excessive deficits procedure set out in the treaty keeps up the pressure on sound public finances. Member states' debt and deficit performance is monitored with a view to restraining excessive deficits. For those member states that participate in monetary union, the Council may also consider applying sanctions if participating member states persist in running excessive deficits. Those requirements are taken seriously by other member states, as they are by the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members will have heard of the stability pact that was proposed by the German Chancellor, and I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of what it involves. It aims to apply the excessive deficits procedure even more rigorously to member states that participate in monetary union.
It is a long and complicated matter. We have touched upon it in today's debate perhaps only superficially, but the main issues that have been raised and that are related to unfunded pensions and the difficulties that all Governments must face are decisions and objectives that will not go away.
The UK has done a good job in recognising the issue and deciding how to deal with it. Elsewhere in Europe, the decisions are being made rather late in the day. I hope that those Governments are aware that they must take action whether or not they intend to join a single currency, as it is in their interests to look at unfunded pension liabilities. If they do not, they will pass debt on to their heirs, rather than assets. The matter is the subject of on-going discussions, not just in the House, but elsewhere. One thing is clear: member states must recognise the importance of fiscal discipline and responsibility, including responsibility—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

Health Care (Highlands)

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for the timely opportunity to raise this issue, and I look forward to the Minister's response. The debate is occasioned by two issues on the immediate agenda of health provision. I wish to refer to the care of the elderly in the highlands in particular, but I will touch on a more deep-seated anxiety in a moment.
Two specific issues have given rise to the debate. First, there has been huge controversy and complexity regarding the funding of long-term residential care for the elderly. Secondly, an apparent impasse has been reached in the contract negotiations between Highland health board and the respective health trusts. At the Raigmore Hospital NHS trust in particular, there is a £2 million gap between the board and the trust in the discussions that are taking place.
I am not against the move towards the purchaser-provider split—nor was I when it was proposed—and I did not oppose the previous move towards general management within the health service; I thought that those were sensible reforms. Over the years, I have not always been a fan of Highland health board. It has been the subject of controversy, ranging from its ill-fated attempt to site a private pay bed at Broadford hospital on the Isle of Skye—a proposal vetoed by the then Minister with responsibility for health, now the Secretary of State for Scotland—to its abortive attempt at pre-emptive closure of Gesto hospital on the Isle of Skye. The health board and I have not always seen eye to eye, and I am not here to defend the status quo.
I was opposed to the move towards trust status that built on the internal market in health care in the highlands. That was partly because of the well-rehearsed national arguments at the time and partly because of two specific local factors that struck me as making full trust status within an internal health market particularly inappropriate in the context of a vast rural area such as the highlands. The geography of the area and the pressure that that places on the delivery of health care inevitably make the practical grafting of an internal market on to the system extremely difficult, if not totally counter to the principles that are supposed underpin it.

Mrs. Ray Michie: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: My hon. Friend, whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber, shares my concerns.

Mrs. Michie: My hon. Friend referred to the geography of the area. Does he agree that there is also a problem facing remote, rural and inducement practices? Since 1985, those practices no longer receive expenses for postgraduate training. That puts those practices at a severe disadvantage in terms of keeping up to date with modern medical practices—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. This is a rather long intervention in a half-hour debate.

Mrs. Michie: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands what I am talking about.

Mr. Kennedy: I certainly do understand, and we live in hope that the Minister also understands. I see that some consultation is going on to that effect. My hon. Friend has offered a good specific example of the kind of practical difficulties that arise.
The artificiality of competition in the health market within the highlands comes into most sharp focus when one looks at the position of the Highland health board as the purchaser and the Raigmore Hospital NHS trust as the provider. We know that the health board has nowhere else to go to place its contract each year, as it has no alternative regional acute facility providing the range of specialties offered by Raigmore. There is an artificiality to the debate, and if the system becomes bogged down—as it has done—it will create problems in the current financial year for the managers of the trust and the management of the health board.
Last year, the Minister established an important principle—although perhaps he was not particularly anxious so to do. When the Highland communities trust and similar operations in Grampian ran into financial difficulties, he was obliged to step in and acknowledge that, to a certain extent, the public purse would have to bail out trusts with funding problems. That development was indicative of a wider anxiety. The trusts in Grampian and Highland were at the head of the queue in Scotland, and the fact that they are in some financial difficulty this early suggests that we are seeing the tip of a national iceberg. There is a further example in Ayrshire of the difficulties being encountered by trusts, a subject that will be hotly debated in the Scottish Grand Committee in Ayr next week.
Last year, the crisis in the Highlands communities trust was overcome, but problems remain for it. The locum chief executive, Fiona Mackenzie, told me in anticipation of this debate that the first financial problem related to bridging finance for the on-going project closure of Craig Dunain hospital in Inverness. There have been meetings between the health board, the trust and the Scottish Office, and it would be timely if the Minister would tell us where the matter now stands.
The second problem stems in the main from the logjam that has been reached on the Raigmore trust, but the fact that contracts have still not been agreed for the current year has also had an effect. There is a difference of £2 million between the trust's price, £46.8 million, and what the health board is willing to offer, £44.8 million. The difference relates to activity levels and the fact that, in the past year, the trust has been operating with a busier throughput than was expected and is incurring larger overheads as a result.
If one looks at the range of options—perhaps I should say the range of dilemmas—facing the trust's management at the moment, one sees that, to a certain extent, the trust has been a victim of its own activities. It is considering a number of options. Given the rising number of out-patients, the trust is increasingly unable to meet its own target times, and a decrease in the extent of out-patient facilities provided is being considered. Another option concerns the vexed issue of ward closures.
A third option—to which I wish to refer specifically, as it has in many ways been the most emotive locally—is to increase the rent levels for student nurses in Inverness. Indeed, it was revealed in March that it was intended to increase rent from £54.64 a month to £150. That is an


exorbitant increase and, despite the fact there has been some to-ing and fro-ing between the student nurses and the trust, the issue is far from resolved.
The options are a range of dilemmas, which are far from satisfactory. They suggest that a number of questions remain outstanding. First, why is there such a gap in perception between the management of the health board and the management of the trust over what is the right price and the right level of activity that can be delivered on budget? Two sets of professionals are involved in the same service, so why are they £2 million apart this far into the financial year?
Secondly, given the examples I have cited, the Minister would surely accept that to expect the trust to go on and on with its downward drive for on-going 3 per cent. efficiency savings is just not realistic in the context of the Highland health board area, not least given the kind of geographical overheads that accrue, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred. Thirdly, the Minister should not set his face against having to provide further cash for Raigmore, if need be, as he had to do last year with the Highland communities trust, to make possible an agreement on a reasonable level of contract which is not detrimental to the overall levels of patient care.
Such is the problem as seen from the point of view of the trust, but what about the perspective of the Highland health board? Its general difficulty in funding is that it is one of only two health boards in Scotland to find themselves more than 1 per cent. below the SHARE—Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation—formula for annual allocation. That shortfall again relates to geography, because that formula, when applied to the Highland health board area, does not take adequate account of the sparsity factor. I know that the management executive of the health service in Scotland is to review the funding formula. I hope that the Minister can guarantee that the specific difficulties being experienced by the Highland health board will be carefully taken into account and that that review will be sensitive to its difficulties.
I reiterate what I said about judging the issue in terms of what happened to the Highland communities trust. The health board is involved in the long-term closure of Craig Dunain and the transfer to community care, so I hope that the Minister can give us a more detailed update from its point of view on the additional bridging finance that it is seeking to give effect to that transfer.
The final problem relating to funding difficulties refers to the social work budget of Highland council, which has a £350,000 shortfall. It is having to consider, as Perth and Kinross council was obliged to do recently, the transfer of its residential care of the elderly from council auspices to the private sector. When that suggestion was first mooted a few weeks ago, it caused sheer uproar throughout the length and breadth of the Highland council area. I went to visit one of the four homes on the initial hit list, Urray house at Muir of Ord in my constituency. The sense of horror among the elderly patients at what may happen to them was saddening and sickening.
I have raised the issue with the Minister at a recent sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee. There appears to be a gulf between what the social work directorate tells me about funding and what the Minister is being advised about that by his Department. The Minister has agreed to

a meeting, and I would be grateful if he would get around the table with representatives of the Highland council, and if necessary the relevant sectors within the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, to see whether the shortfalls in the social work budget identified by the director, Mr. Jim Dick, match the account that the Minister put forward, I do not doubt with good intent, during our previous exchanges on the subject.
I welcome the fact that, in providing the crucial service of residential care for the elderly, the Highland council has by no means shelved the option of opting wholesale for the private sector. It has, however, announced plans for a seminar later in the year to look at the subject in a slightly broader and more measured context than has been possible. That seminar, which would offer a broader review, accompanied by a detailed comparison of the figures at the Scottish Office level and those at the directorate level of the council, would be extremely helpful.
Three broad issues must be considered. First, one must consider the transfers as a result of the closure of Craig Dunain hospital and the bridging finance that is important to the health board and the communities trust. Secondly, one must consider the on-going difficulties surrounding the contract discussion and the £2 million gap between the Raigmore trust and the health board. Thirdly, one must consider the health board's perception of its own on-going problem—persistent under-funding due to the inflexibility of the SHARE formula in terms of the sparsity factor.
The Minister should note that there is a great feeling of unease and alarm across the highlands at the moment concerning specific provision for the elderly as well as health care in general. In his reply, I hope that he will make a significant contribution to allay the anxieties of those in most immediate care as well as to meet the perceptions of those who feel that they or their loved ones will be in need of care in times to come.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): If Highland council disagrees with the distribution formula as operated by COSLA, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) should advise it to make strong representations, to send in all the available evidence and to copy it for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has responsibility for the highlands, and also for me. We will look at it.
On 28 May, the health board submitted an application for bridging finance in 1996–97. A preliminary meeting involving the Scottish Office, the health board, the Highland communities trust and the social work department was held on 30 May. That meeting provided an opportunity for helpful and constructive exchange of views. It is essential to be clear, however, that bridging finance is not the principle means of enabling community development. Funding must continue to come from resources released from the hospital sector for reinvestment in community health services and transfers to local authorities for social care provision.
The hon. Member is obviously interested in service developments at Raigmore. I am aware that the trust has developed proposals to open a new haematology-oncology facility at Raigmore. That will be dependent on the necessary resources being in place. It is one of the


issues being discussed within the current contract negotiations. As hon. Members will appreciate, it is simply not possible to fund all the developments that one might wish to see simultaneously introduced since, despite the billions of pounds of public funds devoted to the NHS, we still have to work within finite resources.
I know that the hon. Member is interested in the proposals that the trust has in mind for increasing the number of clinical sessions for rheumatoid arthritis sufferers. The position on that initiative is similar in that much depends on the outcome of the contract negotiations.
The hon. Member touched on rent increases for student nurses at Raigmore, as did the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) earlier. I understand that the previous rent levels were unrealistically low compared with market levels and levels paid by students in other areas. I understand that the increased rents are now being phased in over one year instead of six months as originally planned.
The hon. Member may be interested to know that there is to be a primary care resource centre at Easter Ross. I congratulate the local Members of Parliament on taking the initiative in undertaking the feasibility study. We welcome the vision and concept behind the proposal and look to purchasers for a definite local commitment on how the proposal is to be developed. The ensuing business case will be considered on its merits.
I welcome the opportunity for the debate. The principle to which the hon. Member alluded is extremely important: patient standards and patient care must not be allowed to suffer. It is, of course, the responsibility of the Minister with responsibility for health to ensure that that does not happen.
I am well aware that the Highland health board has definite challenges because of its particular geographical circumstances, which mean that it is spread over such a large area. It has to strike a balance between delivering services in small local communities and more centrally at Inverness. It is working hard on the development of locality plans in partnership with the trust, the Highland council and other agencies. It is working with local health councils and taking the views of the local communities. I am sure that the board will take those views into account when drawing up its strategy for health care services in the highlands.
The hon. Member mentioned the contract negotiation position affecting the Raigmore Hospital NHS trust. In the current contracting round, a gap remains between what is proposed and the price that the board is prepared to pay for an agreed and appropriate level of service. Several trusts in Scotland are still negotiating with their purchasers about contracts for this year, and Raigmore is no exception. That is not unusual at this stage in the process.
These exchanges are designed to produce better outcomes for patients and better value for money locally. The provision of a high and continuing standard of patient care is of the utmost importance, and all concerned are working to resolve the outstanding contracting issues to maintain and improve the level of services to patients. My officials in the management executive are in close contact with the board and the trust about the current state of negotiations and will press for a resolution to be achieved as soon as possible.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister reflect on a phrase he used? He said that it was "not unusual" for contracts not

to be agreed by this stage in the financial year, and that it was most important to maintain standards of patient care. From the management point of view, the longer the uncertainty continues, the deeper the cuts they must make the further into the financial year one gets. How come, therefore, standards in patient delivery will not suffer because of the change that has been made? That does not make sense.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I have said, we want to reach a settlement as soon as possible. The officials of the management executive stand ready to give guidance, should there be any impasse in the negotiations.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is a deadline being set?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All I can say is that we shall work extremely hard to ensure that the necessary agreements are reached, and at this stage it is not necessary for me to intervene. I believe that the negotiations are proceeding well, and we shall closely monitor the position and keep a close eye on it.
In general, the Highland communities trust has introduced a range of innovative developments, including new facilities for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and a new drug and alcohol dependency centre. It has begun upgrading the Belford hospital in Fort William, as well as completing new community health centres in Gairloch and Dundonald.
Specific issues confront the Highland health board. For example, I know that facilities for the patients of Craig Dunain are far from ideal at Inverness. I am pleased to hear, therefore, that the health board, the Highland communities trust and Highland council social work department, working together, have made significant progress in developing plans for the care of the mentally ill. There are already some excellent examples of well-resourced care facilities in the highland region for patients discharged from Craig Dunain.
The Highland communities trust has developed proposals for a new acute facility. I also understand that plans for a long-stay unit are well developed. That is encouraging, and we look forward to reading, in the very near future, the finalised and locally agreed plans, which will deliver improved services to all who need them. We will monitor the position.
I now turn to the issue of community care in the Highland health board area. The board is working with the local social work and housing authorities in continuing joint assessments of local care needs. They are working towards the organisation of best local care that matches local needs. In doing so, they are aware of my position that, for the NHS continuing care sector, no long-stay hospital will close before appropriate care facilities and services are well in place in the community, and no long-stay patient should be transferred to alternative models of care before that care and the necessary support and accommodation are in place and available.
Working towards the aim of improving the daily lives of vulnerable people in the area who need support, last year alone the health board transferred about £3.4 million to the local authority towards the cost of care in the community.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye may wish to know that the sum total of the resources transferred from health to local authorities throughout


Scotland last year was £45 million. Substantial additional resources have been allocated to local authorities to meet their community care responsibilities. In the current year, Highland council has £24.5 million compared with £23.9 million in 1995–96.
The allocation to the former Highland regional council was generous. The council was one of two in Scotland that received additional resources in the form of transitional protection. That reflected the historically high level of Department of Social Security expenditure in the region. Transitional protection was provided for three years to give the council time to plan for the eventual position. The scheme was initiated by the Scottish Office, against initial opposition by COSLA representatives on the distribution committee.
This year, the DSS transfer resources already in the baseline, and the new resources for 1996–97, have been made available to Highland on the same basis as to all other authorities—that is, on the basis of a distribution weighted by the proportion of elderly and disabled people in each area. That is the approach agreed with COSLA' s distribution committee, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye will agree that that is a fair and reasonable basis on which to distribute resources.
It should be mentioned that the Highland health board area has low occupation levels in private and voluntary sector residential homes. Given the lower cost of homes in those sectors relative to the council's homes, there is obviously scope for the council to make more cost-effective use of its resources by making more placements in independent homes.
I now turn to some specific issues relating to the trust in the highlands and to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Kennedy: The Minister phrased that last part very neutrally. Does he support that approach?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Whether appropriate standards are maintained must be ascertained. A Scottish Office working group is considering residential care and is due to report in approximately three weeks' time. It has been considering the difficult issues that have occurred the length and breadth of Scotland. We intend to act on the group's recommendations. I have not seen the fine print yet, but we believe that they will in principle be soundly based and we intend to act on that report as soon as it comes to hand. This is essentially a matter for local decision, provided the necessary high standards are maintained.
I shall now discuss in more detail the constituency problems of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. As he will recall, we had a helpful discussion on 17 October 1995 when, in an Adjournment debate, he raised the problems then affecting the Highland communities trust. At that stage, the trust faced a shortfall of about £1.4 million between its expenditure and its contract income. I hope that, during the debate, I made it clear that my main concern was the action being taken by the trust to resolve its financial difficulties and to ensure that patient care was not compromised.
Following the resignation of the chief executive of the trust and the departure of the finance director, officials in the Scottish Office Department of Health and I moved swiftly to ensure that a sound management scheme was

in place. From a projected deficit of approximately £1.4 million, the new management team produced a financial strategy that balanced the books and put the trust on a sound financial footing for the future.
A key component in the plan was the identification of a cost improvement programme to deliver reductions in recurring revenue expenditure and a revamping of the organisational structure. I was pleased to note the streamlining of the management structure to make it more appropriate to the tasks that lie ahead for the trust.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been especially anxious to ensure that, throughout the health service, management costs are reduced to a minimum consistent with the effective and efficient running of the NHS, so that the maximum possible amount of resources can be devoted to direct patient care. The locum management team and the board at Highland communities trust are to be commended for the way in which they have brought the trust's finances back on track and shown what can be achieved with commitment and resolution.
The Caithness and Sutherland trust, although one of the smallest in terms of operating income, has been especially successful in developing new services. Four new health centres were opened in 1995 at Durness, Tongue, Brora and Helmsdale, and two more are planned for completion in the current financial year at Dunbeath and Kinlochbervie. This is an impressive programme of work, designed to ensure that, even for communities in the more remote parts of the country, high-quality health care can and will still be delivered.
Those developments are hardly signs of a trust being in financial trouble—quite the reverse. The reform of the health service and the creation of trusts have resulted in more patients than ever being treated more quickly by more clinical staff delivering better services.
I now turn to primary care. Patients in the highlands receive a good level of screening and preventative services from GPs in the area, especially on immunisation, child health surveillance and cervical cytology. Primary care also provides chronic disease management for conditions such as asthma and diabetes. Patients also benefit from GP fundholding, which has brought physiotherapy into a practice setting and open access for endoscopy.
There are eight standard fundholding practices and 12 primary care purchasing practices, covering 27 per cent. of the population. Two of these standard fundholding practices are taking part in a total purchasing pilot, which enables GPs to purchase all health care services for their patients. I am aware, as I mentioned earlier, of the feasibility study for a primary care resource centre. The GPs are to be warmly congratulated. We welcome their vision and the determination behind that proposal.
In the past four years, Highland health board has secured funding of more than—

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Mearnskirk Hospital Site

Mr. Stewart:: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future of the Mearnskirk hospital site, Newton Mearns; and if he will make a statement. [30071]

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The board has asked the Victoria Infirmary NHS trust to develop a new 60-bed elderly care facility on the site, resulting in much improved accommodation for frail elderly patients which matches the assessed future needs of local people in that sector.

Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. I should also like to thank the Greater Glasgow health board and the Victoria trust for the recent constructive and useful meetings that they have had with me. Does my hon. Friend agree that the board has been sensible to abandon the European procurement process and contract with the trust? As I understand it—perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm this—the trust will need to put in a detailed application to the management executive. Can he assure my constituents that that application will be treated speedily and sympathetically in the light of the importance of the project for the frail elderly?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, that seems a sensible way to proceed. The trust will need to produce a business case explaining why public financing is necessary and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will look at this sympathetically and speedily.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) may qualify as a frail elderly patient when he hears the result of the next election in the Eastwood constituency.
Can the Minister confirm that the Victoria trust is the same NHS trust that is currently privatising its cleaning, its catering, its portering and its estates services under pressure from underfunding from the Government? Can the Minister confirm that the development is taking place on the site where NHS land was recently sold off to private housing developers and which is currently being used for private profit on behalf of those private housing developers? Will he, for once, own up to the fact that, under the banner of the private finance initiative, the Government are privatising anything and everything that can be turned to a profit inside the national health service?
If the Minister is looking for good news stories about health in the run-up to the general election, I can make a suggestion. Why does he not announce that the Government are abandoning the Tory privatisation of the health service, Tory GP fundholding and the Tory internal market in the NHS? That is the only good news that the voters in Scotland want to hear.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We cannot abandon something that we are not engaged in. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that NHS services will remain

free at the point of delivery. Tender specifications for hospital building, which will bring about much more speedy building, are to be welcomed. The leader of the hon. Gentleman's party has said that he believes in the use of private finance, so the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his own leader.

Community Service Orders

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures are being taken to ensure that those serving community service orders are deterred from offending again. [30072]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has announced a series of measures to ensure that community service in Scotland is seen by both the offenders and the community as a rigorous and constructive penalty.

Mr. Duncan: Does my hon. Friend agree that community service should not be a soft option but a fitting punishment for the crime? The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposals to toughen the regime and has said that they are humiliating. Does not that confirm once again that the Labour party is more concerned about the humiliation of the offender than the humiliation of the victim?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We certainly want to shift the emphasis away from the criminal towards the victim. We believe that community service orders should be rigorous and have considerable benefit to the community. For example, the refurbishment of the King George V playing fields, first phase, will be of immense benefit to the local communities. The programme contains other projects—for example, the removal of graffiti, the cleaning up of cycleways and waterways, the opening of footpaths and the renovation of buildings. Community service certainly should not be a soft option.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister must surely accept that crime in Scotland has doubled under this Government. Does he accept any responsibility for that, and will the Government do anything about it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The overall crime figures have come down in the past three years and that is a sign of the effectiveness of the police, to whom we have given maximum support in the form of high-technology closed-circuit television and many other projects throughout Scotland. We will work on that success and we are determined to give the police the maximum resources available.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Secretary of State for Scotland's determination to be tougher on crime and to strengthen penalties is welcomed by most people, except those who are soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime? Does he agree that one of the causes of crime in Scotland is the dreary municipal estates built by Labour-controlled councils in the 1960s?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is one of the reasons why we support urban regeneration so strongly. We wish to remove that dreariness and to provide more opportunities for jobs. Under urban aid, we provide more than £80 million a year to ensure that those who live in such communities have much better chances. As part of the process, it is absolutely necessary to take a tough line on crime prevention.

Mr. McFall: The Labour party agrees fully that those serving community service orders should be prevented from offending, but does the Minister realise that the main issue for the community today is Gavin McGuire, who murdered Mhairi Julyan? Why was he released only 20 days before he committed that murder? Why did the Crown Office say that there was insufficient evidence to proceed and yet, when the trial for murder happened, it brought in that evidence? Is not the action of the Secretary of State a knee-jerk reaction to stifle debate? Will the Minister join us in the call for an independent inquiry to get to the root of the problem and to prevent the Crown Office from sinking into disrepute as a result of the case?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Lord Advocate, as Law Officer, is responsible for the prosecution service. He is independent of the Government. I am the Minister with responsibility for home affairs, not Minister for the interior and it would be totally improper for me to try to direct the Law Officers on which prosecutions to undertake. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that, for repeat offenders in serious sex cases, the law should be toughened and they should face life sentences.

Employment Prospects

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on employment prospects in the highlands and islands. [30073]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): They remain excellent.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware of the continuing damage being done to the economy and the employment prospects of the Western Isles and Skye by the high tolls on the Skye bridge? Is he aware that, on the new Severn bridge, which was opened today, the tolls will be 30 per cent. lower than the charges imposed on cars using the Skye bridge? How can the Minister justify that difference, especially when the Severn bridge was much more expensive to build? Is it not time that he listened to the weight of public opinion in the highlands, and indeed throughout Scotland, and scrapped the unpopular and damaging private toll regime?

Mr. Kynoch: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman takes that line when a bridge has been provided, using private finance, for the people of Skye much sooner that it would have been provided if the project had had to wait in the queue for public expenditure. The tolls are set at the level of the old ferry fares, so the cost of getting to Skye is no greater using the bridge. If people buy discounted tickets, the price of a single crossing can be lowered to £2.44. That compares with a charge for motor cars and caravans to cross the new Severn bridge of £3.80. The hon. Gentleman did not

point out that the Severn bridge concession is for some 30 years, so the tolls will remain for that period, whereas tolls will be in existence on the Skye bridge for only some 14 to 17 years until the cost is paid back. The bridge is of great benefit to the people of Skye and it means that weather does not cut them off from the mainland. The people of Skye should welcome the improved transport to and from their island.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: In view of what the Minister said at the end of his reply, I hope that he will take the opportunity after Question Time to give a resume of those benefits to the local protesters who are visiting Westminster today to make clear the depth of not just local opposition but Scotland-wide and international opposition to what is being done. [Interruption.] Those who laugh do so in ignorance because they do not know what is being said in other countries about this matter.
As the direct employment loss so far has come from the closure of the ferry, when will the Minister come clean about how much more the public purse in Scotland is having to subvent Caledonian MacBrayne's other ferry networks as a direct result of the loss of subsidy that was generated by the high charges on the original ferry? Why will he not tell us that, if he believes in the commercial case for this bridge?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the difference between the bridge and the ferry. Of course, the ferry was subject to weather conditions, and that was amply exemplified just before the bridge officially opened when, I understand, an ambulance, a police car and a lorry load of fresh fish from South Uist, which was bound for Paris, crossed the bridge when the ferry was not running because of bad weather. Rather than associating himself with people who seem to be intent on flaunting the law and trying to follow a policy of non-payment, which seems surprising for the hon. Gentleman, he should recognise the benefits that the project has brought to that part of Scotland.

Inward Investment

Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what incentives are currently available to attract inward investment to Scotland. [30074]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Among the incentives for inward investment to Scotland are a skilled and flexible work force, low taxes, low inflation and the absence of the social chapter or a tartan tax.

Mr. Nicholls: Is not my right hon. Friend too modest to say that it is a remarkable tribute to his efforts at the Cabinet table that Scotland receives such a massive amount of inward investment and a good deal more for public expenditure than does England? Now that the west country has its own designated Minister, does my right hon. Friend look forward to a time when a similar achievement could be brought about there, perhaps by a modest transfer from the Scottish Office budget?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the success of Scotland in attracting inward investment. I am sure that the west country will


strongly compete for that investment. However, I do not take the credit for Ministers but give it to Locate in Scotland and Scottish Enterprise.
I see from today's newspapers in Scotland that the Labour party would abolish Scottish Enterprise as part of the recommendations of the McFadden Commission. The newspapers state that the distinguished Miss McFadden says that Scottish Enterprise will have part of its role taken over by a Scottish Parliament and another part taken over by local government, and that it will then cease to exist.

Mr. Hood: The Secretary of State will appreciate that street crime is a disincentive to inward investment. Will he take this opportunity to reject the suggestion by the Scottish National party to commercialise prostitution and turn Scotland into the greatest whorehouse in Europe, and assure us that they will have none of that nonsense in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: I know that the Scottish nationalists come up with some eccentric ideas but, as far as I am aware, they have not advocated prostitution as a matter that should be part of our inward investment campaign. The views that they have expressed on that matter are entirely consistent with the most left-wing and most radical party in Europe.

Mrs. Ewing: On the issue of inward investment, would the Secretary of State care to comment on how many jobs originally pursued by Locate in Scotland went to the Republic of Ireland because of the local corporation tax that is levied there—at 10 per cent.? Will he also, instead of allowing his Minister to conduct an argument through the press with the Federation of Small Businesses, organise a meeting to discuss with it the importance of giving support to indigenous industries?

Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that a Member of the Scottish National party—of all parties—should try to argue that Ireland has an advantage because of the rate of corporation tax that it has to offer. If the hon. Lady would care to make an appointment with Locate in Scotland, it will explain to her why we can offer far more than Ireland in terms of financial incentives, and why the 10 per cent. corporation tax levied in Ireland is not a comparative advantage over Scotland. When she has had that meeting, perhaps she will join us in propounding the benefits of Scotland as opposed to Ireland.

Beef Production

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the National Farmers Union for Scotland concerning Scottish beef production. [30075]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: My noble friend the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment and I have regular meetings with the Scottish NFU.

Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend continue to make every effort to secure the complete lifting of the beef export ban, in the interests both of Scottish farmers and of meat exporting companies like Donald Russell of Aberdeenshire, the sales director of which is a constituent

of mine? Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring the reported remarks this morning by the German Health Minister, who in effect said that, whatever is decided by the European Union, Germany will maintain a unilateral national ban on the import of British beef and beef products, in defiance of its treaty obligations and European law?

Mr. Forsyth: Yes; and yes, I do.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: With regard to beef production, the Glasgow meat market in my constituency was advised by the Scottish Office, as late as 1992, to upgrade its facilities with fridges and stainless steel products to bring it into line with the European Community, and only a month ago received a fax from the Scottish Office to say that it should cease production forthwith. The people who work there have been put out of a job. They have had a great deal of investment and their mortgages and homes are being threatened. All I ask is that the Minister, the noble Lord Lindsay, meets them. I hope that the Secretary of State will pass on that request to him.

Mr. Forsyth: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Many people in Scotland are affected by this completely unjustified ban on good, quality Scottish beef. Of course I understand the concerns of his constituents, and my noble Friend will, as always, be pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to bring a delegation from his constituency.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all farmers and those involved in the food chain very much appreciate his efforts and those of the noble Lord Lindsay in trying to resolve the problem? Will my right hon. Friend do two things: first, will he try to speed up the 30-month disposal of heifers, which has not yet started; and, secondly, will he produce a newsletter each week, giving explicit details of how the scheme is proceeding and what farmers should do to help their own interests?

Mr. Forsyth: Officials in Scotland have been working with the industry. The 30-month scheme is now being administered by a group drawn from all the industry's interests, and we have made substantial progress. The task is enormous, and I fully understand the anxiety and concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend and others. His suggestion of a regular newsletter to farmers, some of whom may or may not be members of the National Farmers Union, is good, and I shall certainly ask officials to take that on board and get such a project under way.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State accept that, from the outset of the crisis, one potentially helpful step is the role of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce? Does he further accept that the low volume of meat that has gone into intervention from Scottish farms has been disappointing and that there has been considerable bureaucracy? What steps have he and his fellow Ministers taken to use their good offices with the intervention board to ensure that more meat is moved to try to reduce some of the backlog that is building up, particularly as another tranche is coming on stream?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know of one particularly astonishing case from his constituency, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when it was drawn to his attention. A report is being compiled and a number of changes are being brought about. I agree also with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of access to intervention. Some changes have been made and the matter will be kept under review. I well understand the frustration that has been felt, but it is now being addressed.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Monday, when he and I were on the shores of Loch Lomond, the veterans in attendance were in support of the Government's actions in Europe to protect the interests of beef producers in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom? My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that the Government's tactics have the full support of my constituents.

Mr. Forsyth: I was delighted to see my hon. Friend on the bonnie banks of Loch Lomond, where he was joined by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)—and it was a pleasant and non-political occasion. I am sure that most people in our country applaud my right hon. Friend's stance in standing up for the interests of British beef and British farmers. We take that stand with no relish but because we are determined to get justice in Europe for our farmers.

Mr. George Robertson: We too strongly want the ban on beef exports lifted and convincing measures put in place to eliminate completely bovine spongiform encephalopathy from the British herd, to build confidence in our beef industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that, if the Government's position starts to have more to do with keeping the splinters of an internal argument in the Tory party together, the Government will not only lose the support of hon. Members in other parts of the House but damage, perhaps permanently, relations between this country and our trading partners in Europe—which would endanger countless thousands more jobs?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman might reflect on the fact that the ban was imposed by qualified majority voting. If the decision had required unanimity, the ban would not have been imposed. The hon. Gentleman and his party want more Community measures determined by qualified majority voting, rather than by unanimity. He should acknowledge that he and his party, with their particular policy on Europe, would give more power to Brussels. It is not terribly credible for the hon. Gentleman to complain about the consequences of decisions reached in Europe that are out of line with our national interests when his party is so determined to hand more power to the bureaucrats in Brussels.

Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent report from world veterinary surgeons meeting in Paris, stating that Europe has got it totally wrong in respect of BSE—and that, in going for a programme of culling, now Britain has got it wrong? Those experts were effectively saying that Britain took the correct steps in 1989–90 to correct the BSE situation. Does my right hon. Friend regret to some degree that we have been forced into a culling programme?

Mr. Forsyth: We have not agreed to any culling programme but have entered into discussions with the Community to have the ban—which, as my hon. Friend said, is completely unjustified—lifted. The World Health Organisation and our own Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which comprises a group of distinguished scientists, has spelt out the scientific position clearly. If the matter were driven by science and common sense, our farmers would be able to sell their beef to Europe, where they would find consumers willing to buy a quality product.

Contaminated Land

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources the Scottish Office has received from European Union organisations to assist with the treatment of contaminated land in each of the last three years. [30076]

Mr. Kynoch: The figure is £2.2 million since 1994.

Mr. McAvoy: I do not know whether the complacent Minister realises how his answer betrays the way that he is doing his job. My constituency, uniquely in Scotland, has toxic waste sites that require Government assistance to make safe and improve that part of Lanarkshire. The Minister and the Government have done nothing, while the European Union is ready to assist with money. Does the Minister agree that the money that he and his Government have obtained from the EU is disgraceful and reflects on the hon. Gentleman's competence and ability?

Mr. Kynoch: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that tone because I answered the question simply by giving him the amount of money that has been spent. He will be well aware that he has raised this subject on previous occasions in Scottish questions and that we have given him the answer. That is that the local authorities and the Glasgow development agency have conducted studies into the position in Rutherglen, which have confirmed that there is a problem with hexavalent chromium on certain sites.
Equally, however, the local authority has commissioned a study by the university of Glasgow and the local health board into the health aspects. He will be aware—as I remember telling him this the last time he raised this question—that it has been ascertained that there is no health hazard because the chromium is well underground.
Scottish Enterprise is funding a research project, managed by the City of Glasgow council, to determine the most effective technical means to deal with contamination. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is doing nothing to deal with the problem in this region, he is not looking at the facts. There is a problem, and it is being dealt with. Funding clearly involves a problem of priority and it is up to the local enterprise companies and local authorities to decide how to spend it.

Mr. Congdon: While resources for contaminated land are welcome, does my hon. Friend agree that we should not delude ourselves into believing that it is European money? As this country is a net contributor to European funds, it is paid for and funded by the British taxpayer.

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right. All too often, however, Opposition Members are ignorant of where funding comes from. They keep talking not just about European funding, but government funding and they forget that that funding comes from taxpayers and that the Government have a responsibility to them to ensure that they get value for money. Opposition parties advocate increased taxes and less efficient and increased spending. That is where we differ markedly from those parties.

Mr. David Marshall: What percentage of contaminated land has been treated in Scotland in the past five years and when does the Minister expect all the contaminated land in Scotland to have been treated? At the present rate of progress, will it take five or 500 years?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the contamination problem is dealt with by Government policy on the "polluter pays" principle and that it is not possible, therefore, to ascertain exactly what has been spent on contamination, but if a polluter pollutes, it is his responsibility to clean it up.

Beef Industry

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on employment in the beef industry in Scotland. [30077]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Around 16,000 jobs in Scotland depend on the beef industry.

Mr. Home Robertson: Since the Scottish Office has comprehensive devolved powers over agriculture and food, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his predecessor, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), could have taken steps to prevent BSE's spread into Scotland 10 years ago? Is it not a fact that an elected Scottish Administration would have been far more likely to take effective steps to protect 21,000 jobs, or the lower number of jobs that the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted, in the Scottish beef industry? Even now, why is this little Englander from Stirling aggravating our European partners, instead of taking steps to restore confidence in Scottish beef and our export markets?

Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that anyone would have taken whatever steps were possible to prevent BSE's spread, and the Government have always acted on the basis of scientific advice. I know that Opposition Members are in some disarray and feel desperation over their plans for a Scottish Parliament, but the hon. Gentleman's question must be the worst example of scratching around to try to find an argument for a Scottish Parliament that I have yet heard.
On Scotland's interest, from his knowledge of the industry, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have consulted on exempting from the 30-month rule the specialist, slow-maturing breeds and grass-fed cattle from herds that have not been infected with BSE. We hope to be able to make progress with that as we continue our constructive discussions within the Community.
I am sorry that we do not have the hon. Gentleman's support in standing up for Britain and refusing to co-operate within the Community until such time as, under Community rules, the access to the single market that we are guaranteed by treaty is given to our farmers—many of whom are struggling to survive, unlike the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt has plenty of fat to keep him going through the present crisis.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the compensation arrangements for those who have lost business or their jobs because of the BSE crisis are falling very unevenly? Does he also acknowledge that the firm of Donald Russell, which has already been mentioned—it is an export-led company—has laid off 34 workers who have, as yet, no prospect of compensation or re-employment? This matter also affects those who have been involved in the processing of head meat.
In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that compensation is made available equally and fairly to all who have suffered through no fault of their own?

Mr. Forsyth: I have considerable sympathy for the people concerned, but the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. We have never introduced a compensation scheme. What we have done is spend almost £1 billion on keeping the infrastructure of the beef market operating. We made it absolutely clear that we were providing money not for compensation, but to allow the infrastructure of the beef market to continue to operate. A large amount of that money was spent on reducing the backlog that was clogging up the abattoirs.
To compensate everyone for losses arising from the crisis would involve an enormous and quite unsustainable sum. People will suffer losses. The Government have tried to do everything possible to maintain the industry, which is important for employment, in operation in Scotland. I realise that that is an unpalatable message, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to commit his party to compensation, perhaps he should do his sums first.

Mrs. Liddell: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the problem of BSE and the consequent difficulties with employment are not helped by intemperate remarks from the Treasury Bench? There is a need for a serious and considered programme of action. The Opposition welcome the fact that it will soon be illegal for anyone to hold bone-in animal feed. We also welcome the fact that the Government are now starting a collection programme for such feed from farm and feed mills.
It would be of great value to the farming community to have information on the details of how collection is to operate. Farmers need that information rather more quickly than would be achieved under the interesting proposal, made by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for a newsletter. This is a critical issue that affects the industry.
Will the Secretary of State reconsider his opposition to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and me for a serious inquiry into the circumstances in which 60 per cent. of beasts found to have BSE have come from beasts born after the ban was introduced? That is a helpful suggestion. It is


important to trace the origins of the meal so that there is a chance of identifying which feed mills have been distributing contaminated feed. That would provide us with an opportunity to isolate those areas that have had contaminated feed. I make those suggestions in a constructive manner.

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of there not being intemperate remarks from the Treasury Bench, especially the shadow Treasury Bench. I exempt her from that, but the behaviour of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was absolutely disgraceful. Indeed, it contributed significantly to the problems that we now face.
On the hon. Lady's point about communications, I can confirm that my officials are in regular contact with the industry. There is an all-industry group, uniquely in Scotland, advising and working in partnership with the Scottish Office and the lines of communication are good. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries made a good suggestion for a newsletter to go to all farmers telling them what is happening. However, there are also means of direct communication on such important matters as the use of animal feed.

Education

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance is given to encourage children aged 16 years or over to stay on in full—time education. [30078]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): We are developing a new system of courses and assessment—"Higher Still"—to give all young people from age 16 the opportunity to stay on and gain relevant qualifications to the highest standard they can reach. Financial support is available in Scotland for this age group through child benefit of £40 million and, with bursaries and other allowances, to more than £91 million in total.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the staying-on rate has risen to an amazing 43 per cent. since the Government took over? What does he think would be the effect on the staying-on rate if the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) were ever to have the opportunity to put into effect his proposal to remove child benefit from this group of people?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the teenage tax proposed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East would hit Scotland hardest of all parts of the United Kingdom. Because of the Government's outstanding success, more 16-year-olds opt to stay on in school in Scotland than in any other part of the land. Therefore, Scottish families would be hardest hit by that learning levy—that tax on learning.

Mr. Canavan: Did the Minister see the report in The Herald yesterday about the Scottish student who was forced to pay £20 a week to live in a broom cupboard under the stairs because he could not afford to pay a higher rent? Bearing it in mind that the maximum student grant is now only a fraction of what it was when Labour

was in power, will the Government take urgent action to eradicate student poverty and to help build better opportunities for all our young people?

Mr. Robertson: Madam Speaker, it is for you to work out the procedures of the House, but, surely, during Question Time, we should now distinguish between new Labour and more traditional Labour, because what the hon. Gentleman has just said is not what the rest of his party is saying. He is talking about student grants, but Opposition Front Benchers want to abolish grants and ensure that students subsidise themselves and pay back grants over 20 years. He should know that, under our proposals and our system, grants and loans together now amount to more than they did when his party was last in government.

Lady Olga Maitland: As more children than ever before are sitting highers this summer with a view to going to university, does my hon. Friend agree that their hopes would be entirely dashed if they were penalised in the support that they receive to stay on in full-time education? Does he agree that the teenage tax would kill opportunity, whereas the Conservative party provides opportunity?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The proposal by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, the shadow Chancellor, is probably one of the most odious and obnoxious proposals to come from any shadow Chancellor.

Mr. George Robertson: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that Opposition Members passionately believe in encouraging children to stay on in full-time education? Does he realise that his half-baked—even sinister—plans for mandatory national testing will do nothing to keep young people in the education system? Does he realise that, by alienating parents and teachers with this hidden Thatcherite agenda for selection and for vouchers in schools, he offers no hope to young people who want to stay on in full-time education? Before the Government damage more irreparably the Scottish education system by trying to breathe some life into the Thatcherite corpse, will they think again and abandon their dangerous plans?

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will take kindly to being called Thatcherite. He said:
It's absolutely vital that parents get as much information as possible. I certainly want that for my children; I want to know exactly how they're performing at school; I want to have a proper assessment of them.
Why is it right for the Leader of the Opposition to have those rights and that information, but it is not right for the hundreds of thousands of Scottish parents?

Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of pupils remain at school over the age of 16 years in Scotland; and what is the United Kingdom average percentage. [30079]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: In 1994–95, the age 16 staying-on rate in Scottish schools and equivalent course in further education colleges was 81 per cent. The closest comparison for the UK was 72 per cent.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that that major difference of between 9 and 10 percentage points shows that Scottish children would be disproportionately affected were there a teenage tax of £560 a head in lost child benefit? Would not that be devastating for teenage education in Scotland?

Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. To abolish child benefit for pupils staying on for higher and further education would be equivalent to levying a tax increase of 5p in the pound on the average taxpayer with one child aged 16 to 18. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) says that Labour is only reviewing the proposal, but will he tell us whether he will be supporting or opposing it?

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that one source of income for families whose children are staying on at school is the higher school bursary? Is he further aware that, since the abolition of Strathclyde regional council, many authorities in the west of Scotland are, for financial reasons, unable to give bursaries to children who go outwith their own boundaries? In such circumstances, will the Minister consider providing additional finance for all authorities so that they can provide bursaries for children going outwith their area, or will he introduce legislation to make it compulsory for all children from any education authority to be treated equally, no matter whether they go outwith their authority's boundaries?

Mr. Robertson: We are now spending some £45 million on further education bursaries, which in real terms is 188 per cent. more than was spent in 1979. We spend some £6 million on school bursaries, which is 123 per cent. more than was spent under the previous Labour Government, so we will take no lectures on our support for bursaries.

Health Service and Local Government Funding

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effects on public finances of making per capita funding from the Treasury for the health service and local government in Scotland the same as the average for England. [30080]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Health and personal social services spending would fall by 20 per cent., and local government aggregate external finance grant by some 30 per cent., if funding was on the same per capita basis in Scotland as in England.

Mr. Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend thought that it might well be a winning policy in the rest of the United Kingdom to introduce a tartan tax to allow Scotland to have its independent tax-raising Parliament which would then raise taxes to pay for that extra funding? Has he made any estimate of just how much the tartan tax would have to be to pay for that additional spending in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: If I understand my hon. Friend's question correctly, he is asking how much we would have to raise through a tartan tax in order to make up for the additional expenditure that we enjoy in Scotland over and above what would be spent if we had the same level of spending in England. It would be about £3.5 billion. I think that

1p on income tax raises about £130 million, so my hon. Friend can work it out for himself. He began by asking whether I thought that it would be an election-winning strategy. From what I hear, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) considered the notion and decided that it certainly was not.

Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State will have no problem whatsoever understanding my question; it is very simple. What is the Scottish Office's notional figure per capita for the cost of local government reform?

Mr. Forsyth: I should be happy to give the hon. Gentleman an estimate, if not a notional figure, of the cost of local government reform, and I should be happy to write to him. There is one question that his colleagues seem to have difficulty understanding-it is the question that he used to ask repeatedly but which I understand he has now been prevented from asking; the famous West Lothian question.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a critical part of the spending differential between the health service and local government in Scotland are the funds that have been spent on care in the community? If the funds are not used properly, we end up with blocked-off beds in the health service and care in the community is starved of money. Does he agree that the inquiry currently being held on Tayside will help to unravel some of the ghastly aspects of this problem?

Mr. Forsyth: I cannot anticipate the results of the inquiry. Suffice it to say that Scotland enjoys considerably higher expenditure per head on health than they do in England. If we had a tax-raising Parliament, or indeed a Parliament without tax-raising powers, there is no doubt that that funding would be called into question. Opposition Members who support that change are putting at risk the funding of vital services.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State admit that the comparison between a nation of 48 million people and one of 5 million or 6 million people scattered over a large area is not adequate to address per capita spending? Should not the needs of a scattered community, rather than that false comparison, be borne constantly in mind?

Mr. Forsyth: I certainly agree that it is important to take account of needs and the range of services. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for local government, the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), has undertaken a study to find out why local government in Scotland spends about 45 per cent. more per head than local government in England. It will be interesting to see where the resources are going.
At present, our funding is determined by a formula, and not as a result of any needs assessment. The point that I was making to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was that setting up a Scottish Parliament would undoubtedly result in pressure from this House for some proper needs-based assessment of expenditure in Scotland. My advice to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is that we should leave things as they are and not risk the changes that would result from the setting up of such a wind machine in Edinburgh.

Scottish Economic Council

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Scottish Economic Council to discuss trends in the Scottish economy. [30081]

Mr. Kynoch: On Friday 21 June.

Mr. Salmond: Has the Minister responsible for industry taken account of the comments of the president of the Scottish National Farmers Union yesterday and of the CBI today about the economic damage that could be done if the Government's beef war gets out of hand? Has the Secretary of State succeeded in persuading the rest of the Cabinet to adopt the same infantile attitude to Europe as he adopts? He has hardly succeeded in persuading the Scottish people, who have dumped the Tory party back to 12 per cent., as an opinion poll will show tomorrow. How many of the 70,000 jobs in Scotland that depend on European markets, the 50,000 that depend on inward investment and the 20,000 that depend on European tourism is the Minister prepared to jeopardise in pursuit of the Secretary of State's insulting and aggressive attitude to our European customers?

Mr. Kynoch: That is choice, coming from the hon. Gentleman, whose party seems intent on incorporating a European star even in its logo. He will be well aware of the significant impact that the unjustified and unscientific ban is having on north-east Scotland especially—on his constituents and mine. I have been in constant contact with my farming community, and my farmers are behind the Government's efforts to have the ban lifted. They want the market opened and confidence restored. They appreciate the moves that the Government have made. If the hon. Gentleman spent a little less time canoodling with his European partners and got his colleague, the Member of the European Parliament for Scotland North East, to fight on behalf of north-east Scotland's farmers, the farming community would be a lot better off.

Mr. Stewart: When he meets the Scottish Economic Council, will my hon. Friend discuss the impact of removing the present controls on business rates, as proposed by the Labour party? Business rates are an overhead for every company in Scotland. Would not such a policy be disastrous for investment and jobs?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is very experienced in such matters and knows perfectly well that business pleaded for many years for a level playing field on non-domestic rates. He will also be aware that the new chairman of the Glasgow chamber of commerce has said that it would be utter folly to return business rates to local government control. That would be a back-door increase in business taxation on top of a tartan tax, with its effects on Scottish business, and on top of the effect of the social chapter, the minimum wage, the teenage tax, the graduate tax and all the other proposals for increased taxation that would reduce the competitiveness of Scottish business if the Labour party ever took office.

Dr. Reid: The Minister is an expert on lecturing people about tax. Will he confirm that the extra taxes that the Government have inflicted on the Scottish people in the

past two years have been equal to 7p in the pound? Working on the figures given only a few minutes ago by the Secretary of State showing that each penny of that represents £130 million in income, will he confirm that the Government now receive £910 million a year more from the Scottish people than they did two years ago? Why are services being cut and the fabric of society being destroyed if the Government are taking almost £1,000 million more from the Scottish people for that privilege?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman and his party talk about tax increases. They credit the Government with a tax increase that has been applied largely by the Labour party—this year's increase in council tax. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand that central Government have increased funding to local government by 3.6 per cent., which is well in excess of inflation. He also does not understand the fact that Labour councils have increased council tax by an average of 13 per cent. —and sometimes much higher—which has had a damaging effect on services.
The Conservative party believes in trying to get value for money for the taxpayer, and so to increase competitiveness and attract more inward investment to areas such as his. Companies such as the Chunghwa Picture Tube Company, of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware, would not come to Scotland if they had to pay the increased taxation that is proposed by the Labour party.

Social Work Services/(Borders)

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the financial constraints in the provision of social work services in the Scottish borders; and if he will make a statement. [30082]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Borders council has been allocated substantial resources to meet the broad range of its social work responsibilities. In 1996–97, the council has £18.5 million in grant aided expenditure to social work—an increase of 2.5 per cent. on the previous year's allocation.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept, however, that the money allocated to the social work department of Scottish Borders council is inadequate to meet present need and demand? Is he aware that the externalisation of domestic care services, the reassessment of eligibility criteria and the increased charges for such services as Border care alarm are causing great heartache and concern and impacting badly on those most in need of help in south-east Scotland? Will he look again at the amount of money that is made available to the social work department of Scottish Borders council? Will he consider visiting my constituency to see just how difficult it is to make those savings in terms of the exercise that is now in hand and the potential damage that will occur unless the council can find more resources with which to do the job?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am happy to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Scottish Borders council has been allocated more than £14.5 million for its community care responsibilities in 1996–97—an increase of £0.5 million on the previous year. It is for local
authorities to choose their own priorities within the overall allocation. We believe that they should encourage the development of services appropriate to the particular needs of all the areas concerned.

Mr. Donohoe: Does the Minister accept that, if more resources had been made available to the social services, Maguire would not have been in a position to commit his crime because there would have been sufficient resources to address the problem? Should not the Minister and the Secretary of State accept some responsibility for the actions of Maguire and the murder of that young girl in Kilmarnock?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is no. What happened in that particular case has absolutely nothing to do with social work expenditure. It concerns the circumstances that were before the court. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it quite clear that repeat sex offenders who carry out extremely dangerous acts should expect a life sentence once our proposed legislation becomes law.

Public Spending

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of public spending in Scotland is represented by taxation revenues for that country; and if he will make a statement. [30083]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Excluding the revenues from North sea oil, the proportion of public spending in Scotland represented by taxation revenue from Scotland is 72 per cent.

Mr. Winterton: As an English Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, I am perfectly happy that the people of Scotland should receive from the United Kingdom Exchequer £8.1 billion more in spending than they contribute in taxation, because of the great benefits that the Union brings to all the people of the United Kingdom. If there were to be a separate Parliament in Scotland with tax-raising powers, is it not inevitable that the influence of Scottish Members of Parliament in this place would be devalued and reduced, and the benefit that Scotland and its people get from being a member of the United Kingdom would be undermined and dramatically reduced to their disadvantage?

Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is quite right to say that expenditure in Scotland is £8.1 billion greater than revenues. Even if we include all the proceeds from North sea oil, the deficit is £7 billion. The Union is greater than the sum of its parts. We welcome the resources that Scotland receives from the United Kingdom, just as we welcome the partnership that we have with my hon. Friend and his constituents.
It is incumbent upon the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to work out their position on the matter. They must decide whether they agree with their Liberal Democrat partners in the Constitutional Convention, who say that there would have to be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. They must decide whether they agree with the Liberal Democrats' assertion that the office of Secretary of State and Scotland's place in Cabinet would go.
We need answers to those questions because, as my hon. Friend said, the ability to argue Scotland's case in Cabinet and in this Chamber is central to the provision of resources for vital services. That is what Parliament is about, and the hon. Member for Hamilton is putting those services at risk by his foolish proposal that is more to do with his party's advantage than his country's interests.

Mr. Graham: The Secretary of State will be aware that people in Scotland pay taxes. Can I remind hon. Members that they are lounging on leather seats that were produced in my constituency by the Bridge of Weir leather tannery? The workers there make a tremendous contribution to this country through taxes, and they need support from the Government. They may lose their jobs because of the Government's mad, stupid and aggressive policies in Europe. It is time that the Government realised that some of the statements that they are now making could cost thousands of jobs throughout the country. It is time that they acted responsibly and did their business for the whole of Scotland.

Mr. Forsyth: I think that I got the gist of the hon. Gentleman's question. The leather makers in his constituency are in a competitive business, as he knows. If they were ever unfortunate enough to get a Labour Government who set up a Parliament with tax-raising powers, their costs would increase, their marketing would be more difficult and jobs would be destroyed in that industry and many others in Scotland.

Nursing and Residential Homes

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to modify the regulations governing the ownership and management of privately owned nursing and residential homes for elderly people. [30084]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Legislation covering the registration and inspection of residential care and nursing homes is presently under review.

Dr. Godman: Has the unseemly delay in the publication of the report of the working group into this deeply troubling matter been orchestrated by those members of the group who represent the owners of private residential and nursing homes? Following Glen Glova and other scandals, no GP, lawyer or accountant should be allowed to own and/or manage a private home for the elderly. That scandal must be put to rest, and the report ought to see the light of day sooner rather than later.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can happily assure the hon. Gentleman that the report should be available to Ministers in three weeks' time, and I will come forward with our final recommendations for action with all possible speed. In the debate this morning, I outlined our likely response to some of the points under consideration.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Glen Glova. Quite properly, the working group has been considering the issue and the conflicts that arise from the registered person also being a resident's medical practitioner. It has also considered the assessment of persons with dementia by qualified persons who are independent of the proprietorship of the establishment. We will come forward with recommendations as soon as possible.

Education Budgets

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives from school boards to discuss local government education budgets. [30085]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My right hon. Friend last met representatives of the Scottish School Board Association on 1 April, but local government education budgets were not among the topics they asked to be put on the agenda.

Mrs. Michie: I think that the Minister should meet those representatives again soon, because school boards throughout Scotland, and particularly in my constituency, are struggling with budget cuts that mean that ordinary

things such as the cleaning of windows and taking children to swimming pools cannot be done. In particular, will he meet school boards in Argyll and Bute, and that of Oban high school, where the building project that was supported by the Scottish Office has come to a dead halt? If he does not address those cuts in education, I believe that, very soon, everyone will say that local government reform has been an unmitigated disaster.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady talks about cuts, but in setting its budget, Argyll and Bute council has been able to increase its expenditure on services this year by £5.1 million, or almost 5 per cent. above the level that the former regional and district councils budgeted to spend last year. Therefore, although the hon. Lady is quite right to ask certain questions, she is asking the wrong person. She should ask her council what it is doing with the increased resources that are available to it.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to the 21st edition of "Erskine May", page 291, and the responsibilities for questions? The basic issue is that it is the duty of Ministers to answer questions on matters of ministerial responsibility. It is not the duty of Ministers, if one reads from "Erskine May" aright, to bring in all sorts of extraneous, tendentious matters to the answering questions, which actually demeans the House of Commons.
It is also relevant to mention that yesterday there was a Scottish debate. There were points of order that may have been brought to your attention, which have resulted in a serious letter to Sir Russell Hillhouse asking about the role of the civil service in preparing matters of a tendentious nature when introducing a Bill. Could I ask you, as Speaker, to reflect on the various submissions that have been made, and possibly to make a statement in your good time?

Madam Speaker: I will certainly look at the latter point that the hon. Gentleman has raised with me as soon as I can.
On his first point, I recognise that, over many years, Question Time has developed into a lively occasion, on which political points are scored. Of course, the primary purpose of Question Time is to hold the Executive to account. "Erskine May" says:
Questions …should relate to the public affairs with which they"—
Ministers—
are officially connected, to proceedings pending in Parliament, or to matters of administration for which they are responsible.
That is on page 285 if hon. Members would like to study it further.
Elsewhere, "Erskine May" says—it for the benefit of those Members who put questions—
The purpose of a question is to obtain information or press for action … it should not be in effect a short speech.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Members on all sides of the House are guilty of that. That quote appears on page 287.
As to answers and supplementary questions, I quote from page 295:
An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers".
I ask the House to take my words seriously and to look at those sections of "Erskine May", so that all Government Departments will know my feelings about this matter and all Back Benchers will know that I feel that their questions are becoming long speeches. They should ask pertinent, brisk questions.

Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In contrast to the last point of order, I wonder whether I might raise with you a point of order about something that has affected the fabric of the House rather than its procedures. Some of us, when we went through the No Lobby—I appreciate that you may be unfamiliar, in the normal course of your day's events, with voting—

Madam Speaker: I spent a lot of my life going through the No Lobby.

Mr. Harris: But not last night, Madam Speaker.
Many of us were surprised, and not a little dismayed, to find what can only be described as a memorial to Nancy Astor in the No Lobby—

Lady Olga Maitland: Hideous.

Mr. Harris: As my hon. Friend says, it is hideous. I think that is a fair description of that memorial in the No Lobby, which has appeared apparently during the recess. I do not know whether you were consulted about this, but I wonder whether you would make inquiries about who authorised the erection of that memorial to Nancy Astor.
In raising this point of order, you will understand, I in no way detract from her achievement in becoming the first lady Member of the House to take her seat in the House—not to be elected: to take her seat—and one acknowledges that achievement, but I would put it to you that the No Lobby is a very inappropriate place for such a memorial, on two grounds.
First, quite apart from the aesthetic taste of that memorial, it is in the wrong position. If a memorial is to be erected, surely it should be where visitors to the House usually see it, apart from conducted tours. Secondly, I really do not think that we want the Lobbies of the House turned into a pale imitation of some of the aisles of Westminster abbey across the road, which are mausoleums with all sorts of memorials sprouting to all sorts of people.
I wonder whether you would kindly look at the matter as perhaps our landlord—or, indeed, our landlady—in this place. Would you use your influence to move it to a more appropriate setting?

Madam Speaker: The responsibility no doubt rests with me. I will certainly look into the matter. As far as I can recall, the bust of Lady Astor was commissioned by her family. The Works of Art Committee of the House determined where it should be put—in the No Lobby. The hon. Gentleman is quite incorrect when he says that the visitors do not see it. It is the No Lobby that visitors go through each morning before the House is open.
However, I take seriously the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, who does not normally raise frivolous points of order, and this is not a frivolous one. I will speak with those who are concerned about these matters to see what we can do, since it obviously offends some Members of the House.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Further to that point of order—

Madam Speaker: No; there can be no further points of order. I can only deal with it in the way that I have been asked to do by the hon. Gentleman. It is my responsibility; I will now deal with it.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier today, you made a statement on questions, and of course we shall all be able to read your remarks in Hansard tomorrow. Might it not be a good idea to have printed, along with your remarks, the sections in Erskine May to which you referred, so that Members would have them readily to hand?

Madam Speaker: I will look at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I gave the page references, but if I can be more helpful, I will certainly do so.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Administration Committee gets the blame for moving Annie's Bar, and when some drunken journalists were a bit worried about that, they maligned hon. Members of the House. I would like to place it on record, as in a previous point of order, that that had nothing to do with the Admin Committee. I understand that the Arts Committee is an advisory committee.

Madam Speaker: That was not a genuine point of order. Of course the Administration Committee has nothing to do with it. I gave my word to the House that I am always finally responsible, and I will deal with the matter.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a different point of order. It concerns the principle behind decisions such as that to put up what I think is a very good plaque—and it must be put somewhere. How is the House to be consulted about such decisions? I do not think that the House was aware that it was going to happen.

Madam Speaker: The House should have been aware that it was going to happen, because various hon. Members on both sides of the House sit on the Committees of the House. That is how the responsibility filters through.

Choice of Schools

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish in England a system for administering school admissions similar to that for administering university admissions so as to provide an independent and coordinated method for parents and guardians to choose nursery, primary and secondary schools for their children, and to appeal against any refusal of admission to schools; and for connected purposes.
I hope that this is a slightly less controversial matter. My Bill would establish in England a system of dealing with school admissions which, put simply, would be similar to that currently used for university admissions. It would relate to applications for nursery, primary and secondary schools. It would also deal with one point relating to appeals against refusal of admission.
So that nobody thinks that this Bill has other matters hidden behind it, I can tell the House that it would not create more selective schools or fewer selective schools, and it would not abolish existing selective schools or change the status of grant-maintained schools or city technology colleges. The Bill would not reduce or increase choice, and would not reverse the Greenwich judgments. It would not even ensure that hon. Members followed party policy when choosing schools for their families. Those are all perfectly proper matters for consideration, and I have strong views about all of them, but they are matters for another occasion.
The Bill also would not take away the greatly valued power that each school has within the law of establishing the criteria for its own admissions. It also would deal with a severe problem that arises under the current system. I hope that it would produce a system that worked better and which would be more honest, as well as producing fairer, better and speedier results.
There are four interrelated problems. First, many parents and children often fix their sights on one school and believe that by applying, pushing, hoping and praying, they will get in. Sometimes, too late, they realise that they cannot gain admission to that school, and that any other school they might have wanted has filled its roll.
Secondly, the administration for dealing with school applications is something that many parents find difficult because it is so inconsistent. For example, when parents in my borough make an application to a school—it may be the school of which I am the chair of governors—they will be advised by the head teacher to make applications to other schools. They might not do so, or they might do so later. There will be different dates for applications to different schools, and there will be different forms in the different schools. There will be different criteria, and some may interview. It is a nightmare for parents to get round the circuit, even if they want to go round the circuit at all.
Thirdly—this is perhaps the most serious issue—many parents, head teachers and staff arrive at the end of the summer term with several children having nowhere to go. I have been to many school-leaving events at which the head teacher has said in formal remarks, "Mr. Hughes, please help us, because we still have three 11-year-olds without a place." Nothing is more depressing for those children or their parents as they are leaving their primary school than to be surrounded by others who all have somewhere to go. That is in addition to children who have had an offer with which they are not happy. I will also deal with that.
Fourthly, in some schools there is no guaranteed independent appeals system. I see the Under—Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on the Treasury Bench, and I am grateful to her for attending. In answer to a written question about the proportion of primary and secondary school children in England who gained admission to their school of first choice in 1994–95, she said—I accept the theory—
This information is not collected centrally. Surveys commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in 1992 and by The Times in 1993 suggested that some 90 per cent. of parents gained a place at their first choice school." — [Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 221.]
I am not in a position to quibble with those figures, but if that is right, then 10 per cent. are unhappy and, if that is the national average, then in some parts of the country, the number of those who do not gain admission to their first choice school will be much greater.
From my experience—I have spoken to colleagues on both sides of the House—in London and other urban areas where people may live near local authority boundaries and where many cross-boundary issues may arise, considerably more than 10 per cent. do not get into the school of their first choice. That does not mean, of course, that that 10 per cent. obtain a place at the school of their second choice. They may not obtain a place at the school of their second, third or fourth choice, and that problem raises big questions.
At this time of the year, this issue is probably the second most common problem raised at my surgeries. This morning, I signed 10 letters to schools on behalf of parents in my constituency. Heads have raised the issue with me every year since I was elected. I checked last might with the head teacher of the school for which I am chair of the governors—St. James's Church of England primary school in Bermondsey. Mrs. Robinson, the head, said—I am using her words—that the current system is awful, far worse at the secondary stage, a nightmare and a system gone potty. That is the opinion of a senior primary school head who knows the system well.
Our school has a good system, and we interview all the parents, and also explain that they should apply to other schools. Even so, at the end of the final year in primary school, many children do not have a place. I accept that part of the problem may arise because parents fail to understand that they have to exercise a choice, but it is untrue to say—and we should be honest with people—that there is a freedom of choice of school. That is not true in this country. There is only a freedom of choice of a school if supply is greater than demand at that school, and the children meet its criteria. Parents can choose a school, but they may not get the school of their choice. We should be honest, as we are with people who apply to universities. Applicants make a list, and they may get their first, second or third choice, or they may not.
The present system does not serve children, parents or schools well. In collaboration with colleagues on both sides of the House, we should consider a system for all publicly funded nursery, primary and secondary schools, whatever their status and whether they are local authority schools or church schools, grant-maintained schools or CTCs. The system should have a standard form, with, say,

five choices, which parents must submit by a certain date, fixed in advance. The scheme would be administered centrally, or locally by local authorities—the location is not important—and parents would be allowed to hold only one place. Some children are not offered places because other parents hold places that they never intend their children to take.
The criteria for admission would be given to parents from the start, as for university admission, and a clearing system would operate at the end. That would allow the system to work across local authorities, because parents might want to apply to three schools in their borough and two in other boroughs, or to some local authority schools and some Church schools.
The system would establish a common starting time, and each of the choices could be dealt with in turn, so that the clearing system could start in July. Parents would also be offered counselling and support. We must deal with the differing standard of application forms, because some have adequate information and some do not—I have checked with heads and staff that that is so—and we must try for the best practice.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe that only city technology colleges have no independent right of appeal on admission decisions. I am trying to persuade the city technology college in my constituency—Bacon's Church of England CTC—to introduce an independent right of appeal. One of the Minister's predecessors nearly conceded that such a right should be enshrined in legislation. It is important for parents who do not get a place for their children at the school of their choice to know that somebody entirely independent adjudicates on the decision. One secondary school in my constituency has a waiting list of 180, and the competition for places in some schools is very fierce.
Little can be more sad, more unfair or more undermining for 11-year-old youngsters, their parents and the parents of five-year-olds than not to obtain a place at the school of their choice, to which their mates and their peer group are going. It is most oppressive if, at the end of the last year before school admission, children do not have a place at any school at all. I hope that the House finds the Bill acceptable, and that I may be given leave to introduce it.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Madam Speaker.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has elucidated a serious problem, of which no hon. Member can be unaware because we encounter it in our lives and in those of our children—and, as the hon. Gentleman said, in our advice bureaux, where we encounter the enormous pressure and heartbreak of those who attend.
The hon. Gentleman's idea is a Liberal party one, which sounds better the less one examines it. How could it possibly be an advantage to nationalise the appeal system? What would be achieved by that? How could a national body lay down criteria that would help in his constituency or in mine?
One of the problems about first schools in my constituency is the priority roads scheme. It is difficult for the local authority to solve such problems, and I am not attacking it, but, if Harrow council cannot get the priority roads scheme right in Pinner, how could a national body do it? Getting that right is the solution to the problem of overcrowding in some of the schools in my constituency.
The hon. Member said that he did not mind whether the system was administered locally or nationally, but how could it possibly make rules that would be suitable for the very different areas that hon. Members represent? The hon. Gentleman's motion contains the word "independent". That sounds good, but increased independence for the appeals system can have real meaning only in the context of its effect on an individual over-subscribed school.
There is an independent appeals system, certainly in the borough of Harrow, and no doubt in the borough of Southwark. But the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned related to the inadequacies of the system that is run by Southwark. Southwark should put that right, and not a word he said about changing the framework of the structure would be solve any of those problems. It has to be done much more locally. The Bill is a curious policy move by a party that pays lip service to local autonomy. There is no doubt that the proposed legislation would be costly, bureaucratic and unworkable in practice.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about choice, so let us examine what the Liberal party means by that. Its education spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is in his place, wants to remove the right of parents to choose religious grant-aided schools.

Mr. Don Foster: No.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says no in the Chamber, but he says yes outside. As usual, the Liberals are trying to have it both ways.
They want to remove powers from schools and give them to councils, but I would prefer the powers to stay with the schools. They want to remove the right to choose grant-maintained schools, and they are firmly against city technology colleges. However, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey speaks with pride about the CTC in his constituency. Liberal Members must decide whether they are in favour of them or against them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can take the same view locally as his party takes nationally.
Liberals want to destroy the choice that is provided to poorer families by the assisted places scheme. They have made a specific pledge to take that away, despite the effect that that would have on the 80 per cent. of recipient families on lower than average incomes.
Perhaps Labour Members support the Bill. We all know about Labour and choice. I have a list running to two pages of Labour spokesmen who know all about choice for their own children but do not seem to know much about choice for anybody else. I support those Labour spokesmen who have done the best for their children and have made choices—whether of public, independent, grant-maintained or grammar schools or schools on the other side of London or in any other conurbation.
I support what they are doing, because they are doing the right thing as parents, and they should be protected from the wrath of members of the real Labour party who

have ganged up on them and said the nastiest things possible. [Interruption.] Oh—they have not? Well I could, of course, if I had time, list the two pages of quotes from Labour Members and, indeed, councils run by the Labour party, against those Members.
My criticism is with the policy. Because Labour Members know all about choice for their own children, understand the value of choice and wish to exercise that right as parents, how can they possibly support policies that would take that choice away from their constituents? How can they do that when they know that it is something they want to exercise for themselves?
Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Opposition spokesman on education, summed it up when he said:
I am having no truck with middle class left-wing parents who preach one thing, and send their children to another school outside the area.
I know the effect that that has had on parents in west London, where I live, who wish to send their children to the London Oratory school—a linked school. Parents in west London are extremely angry that people from the other side of London have made it a popular school and managed to send their children there, denying the opportunity for local parents to do the same. That is a fact. It is also a fact that local Labour Members of Parliament have not lifted a finger to help those parents.
Perhaps it was also summed up by one of the Labour "luvvies" with whom I had the pleasure of having lunch a few years ago—a prominent supporter of the Labour party, who wanted all the choice, all the public schools, swept away. When I said, "But didn't you send your children to public school?" I was told, "We would have sent our children to school in Switzerland, so it would have been all right for us." That is the reality of Labour Members: choice for themselves but not for other people.
The Labour party, if it chose to support the Bill, would have to explain its record in power, a period when it had a very bad effect on education, supported as it was by the Liberals. When Labour and the Liberals were in power, spending on education fell by £1.6 billion. Spending as a percentage of gross domestic product fell by one percentage point. Spending on universities fell by 12.6 per cent. in real terms. The number of full-time students in higher education fell, and teachers' pay rose by only 6 per cent. in real terms—a fifth of the rise under my party in power.
That is Labour and the Liberals on education: not a candy-floss pretence that they want choice. What they mean is "choice for us, but none for other people." If hon. Members want choice, they will reject the Bill, and vote for the Conservatives to give them choice in education.
I oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided:Ayes 34, Noes 40.

Division No. 136]
[3.58 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beggs, Roy
Chidgey, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Cohen, Harry






Dafis, Cynog
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Dalyell, Tam
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Davies, Chris Littleborough
Rendel, David


Flynn, Paul
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Skinner, Dennis


Harvey, Nick
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tyler, Paul


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Wallace, James


Lewis, Terry



Llwyd, Elfyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


McCrea, The Reverend William
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Maddock, Diana
Ms Liz Lynne.




NOES


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Booth, Hartley
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Leigh, Edward


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Carttiss, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Cash, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Pawsey, James


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Riddick, Graham


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fry, Sir Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Gallie, Phil
Stewart, Allan


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Sweeney, Walter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Whittingdale, John


Harris, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter



Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Lady Olga Maitland and


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. Bob Dunn.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Housing Benefit

Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move,
That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 965), dated 28th March 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be revoked.
There are two main provisions in the regulations, both of which could have a devastating effect on young people's ability to live in safe, sound and affordable rented accommodation. They may be summarised as follows. First, the regulations laid before Parliament on 2 April 1996 restrict housing benefit payments for single people under the age of 25. To be specific, that involves restricting full housing benefits payable to single people under the age of 25 to the average cost of shared housing—known as the single room rent—in any given locality. Local authority and housing association accommodation is exempt from the restrictions.
The proposals will severely affect all new and change of address claims made on or after 7 October 1996, and existing claims assessed under arrangements since 2 January 1996, from the first benefit review date on or after 7 October 1996. The single room rent will become the maximum limit for housing benefit payable to a young single person. It will be determined by rent officers as the average cost of shared accommodation in the local area. Local authorities will have the discretion to pay rents above the single room rent in cases of "exceptional hardship", but the subsidy available will be subject to an overall cash limit determined by central Government.
Some groups of people will be exempt from the proposed restrictions. Following the consultation exercise after the original draft regulations were laid, two further groups of people have been included in the exempt list—first, some care leavers, but not including care leavers in Scotland, and in any case only young people subject to care orders, and even then only until their 22nd birthdays; secondly, all young people living in housing association properties.
The second key component of the regulations is the changes in payment arrangements for housing benefit for all new claims from 7 October 1996. Those changes will mean, first, the shifting from payment of benefit in advance to payment in arrears; secondly, that direct payments to landlords will be paid four-weekly or monthly; thirdly, that local authorities will have discretion to make first payments of benefit payable directly to the landlord. We believe that all those changes will add considerably to the problems faced by young people seeking rented accommodation.
Let us consider the two sets of proposals before us. First, there is the ceiling for single people under 25 years of age. The proposals in the regulations to restrict benefit rights have to be seen against the background of the severe restrictions on housing benefit entitlement in the private rented sector that have already been in effect from January 1996.
Those draconian measures include a mandatory limit on benefit levels based on a comparison with average rents for the type of accommodation and known as the


local reference rents; a removal of the previously existing protection from benefit restrictions for vulnerable groups such as the disabled, the elderly and families with children; and a very narrow cash-limited discretionary power for local authorities to pay higher levels of benefit in cases of exceptional hardship.
The result is that many people making claims since January 1996 have found that their housing benefit entitlement falls far short of the rents they have to pay. There is already evidence that that is causing severe hardship and leading to many people losing their homes.
The further restrictions on housing benefits for single people under 25 must be seen and judged against the background of the changes that have already been introduced.
How do the Government attempt to justify these further changes? From their statements, they seem to be making several arguments. First, they claim that the number of young people living independently has grown over the past 15 years and is projected to continue to grow. Secondly, they claim that young people who live independently expect to live in accommodation at the cheaper end of the market—usually in bed-sits, or in rooms in shared accommodation. Thirdly, they claim that most young people have comparatively low incomes, and that housing benefit should not assist young people to meet rents for larger accommodation, as that would act as a disincentive to find work and to come off benefit. Fourthly, they seem to argue that housing benefit should not act as an incentive for young people to leave the parental home.
I think that it is worth considering each of those contentions. First, absolutely no evidence has been presented to support the Government's contention that most young people living independently are not in self-contained accommodation, or that young people on housing benefit are any more or less likely to take on unnecessarily large or expensive accommodation. Although the Government estimate that 144,000 out of the 177,000 young people on housing benefit in the private sector will suffer benefit cuts from these measures, no evidence has been presented to support the view that those young people are occupying overly large accommodation. I should be grateful if the Minister will today present the House with the evidence on which that contention is based.
Secondly, the Government's case that young people have lower incomes is certainly true in respect of those who are claiming benefit. Since the introduction of income support in 1988, single people under the age of 25 have been paid at a lower rate of income support—amounting to a shortfall of about £10 a week—with a correspondingly lower level of housing benefit for those not on income support. So there is already a financial imperative for single people under 25 to occupy accommodation at the cheaper end of the market.
Under these proposals, many young people will suffer the double disadvantage of a cut in their housing benefit, leaving potentially large rent payments to be made up out of an already reduced income support level. As the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee commented in its report on the draft regulations, that situation could lead to young people being
harassed by landlords because of rent arrears, leading to possible eviction and homelessness.
The Social Security Advisory Committee also registered its concern at the lack of any evidence about the living situation of young people to back up these cuts, and about

the perceived use by young people of housing benefit to pay for unnecessarily expensive accommodation. The Government have not cited any such evidence, and I again call on the Minister to put before the House today the evidence on which that contention is based.
Thirdly, the Government's concern that housing benefit should not act as an encouragement to young people to leave home, and that it should not enable them to take accommodation that their contemporaries not on benefit would not be able to afford, is of central importance in these changes. Again, however, no evidence has been presented to support either of those concerns. The regulations seem to be based on the view, first, that young people under 25 ought to live with their parents, and, secondly, that such young people should not live in self-contained accommodation.
In response to those views, the Social Security Advisory Committee commented:
young adults have the same general preference for independent living and self-contained accommodation as the rest of the population.
The Government have clearly encouraged that for owner-occupiers, 850,000 of whom are now young people under 25.
The Social Security Advisory Committee also concluded:
We consider that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant impact on persuading young people to remain with their parents. If it does succeed to any extent it will make people less mobile 2026 Many have legitimate reasons for leaving the parental home, while many do not have the choice to return to one.
We support those conclusions, and we further believe that the restrictions on benefit levels are likely to make it harder for young people who need or choose to live independently to find affordable accommodation, and to act as a disincentive for those who do not have accommodation to risk moving for work or for other reasons.
The Government have said that they are concerned about incentives to take work, but the restrictions are likely to act as a strong disincentive for young people, especially those on benefit since January 1996 and so protected from these changes, to change their circumstances by taking work or moving to find work, for fear of not being able to afford the rent if they subsequently have to claim benefit again.
Surely the Government should be encouraging young people to take jobs and look for job opportunities rather than establishing in the proposals a further barrier in the benefit system to their moving to seek the work they so desperately need. Will the Minister explain why the proposals have been set up so as to provide a further barrier to job opportunities?
Imposing a new ceiling on housing benefit for young people is likely to force them into poorer accommodation, always assuming that the supply of shared accommodation increases to make it available. Once again, the Social Security Advisory Committee commented on that contention:
There appears to be no firm foundation for the Department's assessment that the market for private rented accommodation is sufficiently flexible to respond positively to the new ceiling by providing more, inexpensive, shared accommodation.
Again, we share that view. We share the concern that the response of landlords is likely to be to withdraw from providing accommodation for young people.
In addition, the proposals seem to fly in the face of the tremendous efforts across the country by local authorities—I pay tribute to my own in Manchester in this respect—which have vigorously tackled the wide range of problems associated with houses in multiple occupation. Authorities have been working with landlords and often forcing them to convert accommodation into single units, thus providing a decent supply of affordable, safe and sound accommodation for single people.
The policy tries to reverse that trend, a view supported by the National Association of Estate Agents, which, in its response to the draft regulations, said:
It is also, in the opinion of a number of our members, going to create an impossible position as the availability of shared accommodation is on the decline as many landlords have over the past few years been busy converting these type of HMOs into self-contained units. As such, these units will command higher rentals and, therefore, any assessment based on bedsit accommodation with shared facilities made by rent officers will make it nigh impossible for the under 25s to rent this type of accommodation if it is not there to he had.
Surely the Government should recognise the problem and seek to ensure a supply of affordable and safe accommodation for young people.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does that not show how the housing benefit system has distorted the accommodation available on the marketplace in terms of over-emphasis on quality? It is not right that young people should expect the taxpayer automatically to fund self-contained accommodation for them, come what may. Most citizens expect young people to look for jobs before they enjoy such luxuries.

Mr. Bradley: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman suggests that quality accommodation should not be the norm. Presumably he wants low-grade accommodation and little provision of basic facilities for our young people. That view is not shared by many organisations that represent housing groups, or even estate agents, who perhaps should want taxpayers' money to be involved. Clearly the hon. Gentleman does not understand the conditions to be found in many houses in multiple occupation. Forcing young people to live in such conditions is quite scandalous.
It is important to make four further crucial points. First, the Government claim that the changes will save £65 million a year, but they do not seem to have costed spending to deal with the subsequent rise in homelessness, and the further cost of administering the new regulations coupled with the changes that were made to the regulations in January. Will the Minister provide the net cost of those proposals, taking into account the factors that I have just identified?
Secondly, I turn to discretionary payments to vulnerable people. The discretion to pay above single-room rent will be cash-limited. Local authorities simply cannot exercise discretion properly when they are expected to do so within the confines of a cash-limited budget. For example, a single person under the age of 25 who applies for a discretionary payment in, say, December of this year may be successful, but someone in identical circumstances who applies in, say, February next year could be unsuccessful, on the sole ground that the cash-limited budget has already been spent.
We have ample experience of the way in which people are treated unfairly under the social fund. People in identical circumstances are not receiving help when it is desperately needed. Will the Minister comment on the cash-limited budget for discretionary payments?
Thirdly, I turn to exemptions. The Opposition believe that the safeguards built into the regulations are wholly inadequate. I should like to return, as I said I would, to care leavers. As I understand the regulations, only care leavers who have been subject to care orders under the Children Act 1989 will receive exemption from the proposals—but, even then, only until their 22nd birthday. Young people who are looked after voluntarily or following agreement with parents are not to be exempt from the changes for any period.
In March 1994, of the 45,200 young people looked after by local authorities, 53 per cent., or 24,400, were subject to care orders, whereas 20,800, or 47 per cent., were accommodated but not subject to such care orders. The source of that information is the Children Act 1994. The trend is that the number of people accommodated but not subject to care orders makes up an increasing proportion of all young people in the care system.
Scottish care leavers will have no such exemptions, as the Children Act applies only to England and Wales, and the regulations exempt only care leavers who are subject to an order under the Act. The Government have so far given no explanation of why care leavers in Scotland and the other group I have identified should be treated more harshly. Will the Minister confirm my interpretation of the regulations, and if it is correct, explain why it does not apply in the way I have described?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: To supplement my hon. Friend's point, we have received representations from Glasgow Women's Aid, which is absolutely desperate about the matter, especially since Strathclyde region, which was extremely helpful, has been dismantled. I shall give the documents to the Government for their comment.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point, and look forward to the Minister's response to the problem.
Time is short, so I shall make my fourth point briefly. It relates to the Government's policy on non-dependant deductions, which seems contradictory to the regulations. I obtained figures from the Library that showed—it is complicated because of the different income bands—that, on average, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the non-dependant deduction, but, at the same time, only about a 9 to 11 per cent. increase in the income band s to which the deduction applies.
That would seem to encourage young people to leave the parental home because there is an imposition through the benefits system on non-dependants who remain within the family home, but the Government's stated rationale is to stop young people leaving the parental home. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the apparent contradiction between the two policies—between non-dependant deductions and the proposals before the House.
I turn now, briefly, to the other key changes to the housing benefit system in respect of future payments. Although it could be argued that the proposed changes are


merely technical and will not have a substantial effect, we believe that many claimants will be seriously disadvantaged.
The Government's reason for the changes is primarily to avoid overpayments. Although that may occur, it is important to stress that housing benefits payments are made only two weeks in advance, so there is only limited scope for overpayments as a result of payments in advance. However, the negative effects on claimants of a shift to payments in arrears may well be serious.
Most landlords require rent to be paid in advance. Therefore, it is reasonable that housing benefit should be paid in advance. At the start of a tenancy, claimants are often faced with demands for a deposit and a month's rent in advance. There is no provision in the benefits system for deposits, and only limited provision for loans for rent in advance from the social fund. If claimants have to wait longer for their first housing benefit payment, it will be even more difficult for claimants to gain tenancies, and landlords will become more reluctant to grant tenancies to housing benefit claimants. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that point.
Many organisations are concerned about the shift to payment in arrears, coupling it with the shortfalls in rent caused by the January 1996 benefit cuts and the proposals in the Housing Bill to reduce the period of rent arrears that justifies a possession order from 13 weeks to merely eight weeks. That may cause great hardship and insecurity for families and single claimants in private rented accommodation.
We believe that the draconian regulations to restrict housing benefit to single people under 25 further constitutes a form of age discrimination within the means-tested benefits system, and is likely to force young people into unsuitable housing and lead to an increase in youth homelessness.
The Government have refused to accept the main recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee that
the proposal should not be implemented in its present form.
We agree with that, and with the SSAC's devastating conclusion that
the consequence of the proposals could well be that some people dependant on benefits will face a choice between homelessness and living in accommodation of an unacceptably poor standard.
That is why we prayed against the regulations, and that is why we will vote against them tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): We now know that Labour's considered position is that the regulations are draconian and age discriminatory. The Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), has invited his hon. Friends to vote them down. I am disappointed to hear that, as the Opposition have made no alternative suggestion as to what should be done to restrain the growth in housing benefit or as to what the alternative possibilities in their minds might be.
I have in mind the observation in The Times on 18 May, when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was reported to have

emphasised his message to Shadow Cabinet colleagues that they must make no spending commitments before finding savings.
If the regulations do not take effect, there will be costs, to which I shall return later, but we are debating whether they are appropriate measures in their own terms. I appreciate that that is what primarily concerns the House, but the country will be interested in the political point as to exactly what Labour's spending proposals are.
There is a pressing need to tackle the rising costs of housing benefit and the abuse of public funds which, unhappily, has been associated with it. The housing benefit bill stands at more than £11 billion a year, and a significant part of that is spent needlessly and wastefully.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The Minister expresses concern about the abuse of public funds. Does the Department of Social Security ever talk to the Department of the Environment? While his Department is proposing these measures, which will increase poverty, homelessness and unemployment—as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) so eloquently explained—the DOE is proposing nearly to double the amount of financial work that is to be exposed to competition. How will farming out the administration of housing benefit to private agencies assist the DSS in what ought to be its crusade to root out fraud? How will that assist the DSS in its duty to ensure that housing benefit is properly paid on time?

Mr. Evans: I am interested in all those points, most of which do not arise from the regulations. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Departments do talk to each other, as he well appreciates. The measures to which he referred, which deal with the administration of housing benefit, are designed to promote efficiency and to save money.
The hon. Member for Withington made some detailed points on two parts of the regulations. First, he referred to young persons under 25 years of age who are single and have no children. The Government considered what should be done, and the basis of our argument is fundamentally this: that single people under 25 without children and in employment are not normally in a position to afford expensive self-contained accommodation. They have not yet reached the point in their earnings career where they have made enough to justify such expenditure. Undoubtedly, the odd yuppie might be in a different position, but the vast majority of young people who are in work do not expect to rent separate accommodation. They muck in with their friends and share accommodation, as that is the ordinary thing to do.
Under the housing benefit arrangements that applied previously, there was a perceived unfairness that an unemployed person on housing benefit would be treated in exactly the same way as someone who was very much older and who had different expectations. Our principal argument is that the previous arrangements were a disincentive and were unfair.

Mr. Bradley: How many young people under 25 are in shared accommodation and how many are in single-unit accommodation?

Mr. Evans: There is statistical evidence of one sort or another that gives a general impression of such a factor,


but this is a point of principle. The arrangements were wrong in principle and we do not believe that they should continue and, accordingly, the statutory instrument was laid.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If there are no young people on housing benefit in self-contained accommodation at excessive rent levels, this modest measure is not likely to have the detrimental effect that Opposition Front Benchers anticipate. But if there are, the measure is necessary.
In his response to my intervention, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley)—on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition—implied that every young person had a right to self-contained accommodation, whatever his means and circumstances and, if necessary, at public expense. How much would that cost?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct on that second point, and that is the ineluctable logic of what has been contended for by those on the Opposition Front Bench. We do not believe that to be right and we do not believe that the taxpayer believes it to be right. I should make it clear that there are a large number in the category of people who are single, under 25 and childless, who are in receipt of housing benefit-according to the 1994 figures, there were 177,000 of them and the cost was just under £500 million. We are talking about a large sum, which was growing and which should be diminished, as the instrument provides.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister tell us how many under-25s have mortgages on which they get mortgage tax relief? Will the next proposal from his Government be to withdraw that mortgage tax relief?

Mr. Evans: I am interested in that statement; I wonder whether those on the Labour Front Bench will adopt it. Those who are paying mortgages are working and earning and they are entitled to the fruits of their prosperity. We are debating whether welfare payments are properly targeted by providing for under-25s who are unemployed self-contained accommodation that such people would not expect to afford if they were in work. That is the point of principle, and that is why we have introduced the measure.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Scottish National party opposes the measure in principle. I fear that the Minister is about to add an unfairness to an unfairness as he applies exemptions to young persons leaving care, given the different scheme and arrangements in Scotland. What will he do to rectify that anomaly?

Mr. Evans: I shall come to those exemptions in order, but I can anticipate my remarks and offer some reassurance. We shall be laying amended regulations before the instrument comes into force, to deal with the Scottish position. I shall explain why that was necessary and why it has been done in that fashion. The hon. Gentleman's concern, which was also expressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who intervened on the hon. Member for Withington, is valid. It is important to get the arrangements for Scotland right, and I shall explain the difficulties in a moment.
Before I refer to the specific exemptions, I should like to complete my analysis of the principles behind the regulations. We do not anticipate that the type of accommodation that we are talking about will not be available. There is a fundamental point, which I am sure my hon. Friends believe in as a matter of principle—demand creates its own supply in a free market. The number of households in the independent private rented sector, which for the first time since 1919 the Government have deregulated and in which they have created opportunity, has increased significantly, by about 350,000, in the past six years. That is an extremely important achievement, and that market will continue to grow as long as the Government's policies continue.

Mr. Frank Field: When the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee on Social Security, he doubted whether we have a free market in housing in some areas because of the size of the housing benefit bill.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the housing benefit bill and the payment of that benefit prior to the regulations had perverse effects occasionally, which contradicted a free market. As a simple, directly relevant example, if one was young, under 25, single and without children, one might as well have got a seaside flat in one of our coastal resorts. Such was one of the incentives until we introduced the regulations.
I accept that, for all sorts of reasons other than the subject of today's debate—for example, planning controls and other policies involving rent arrangements—the housing market is not a perfect free market. We accept as a matter of principle, however, that a free market of the nature that we have will produce the supply talked about.

Mr. Field: The Minister has just said that demand creates its own supply, but only if one has a free market. Surely the Minister has a duty to establish that free market if he believes that that philosophy will work.

Mr. Evans: We have been steadily and successfully achieving that objective in the past 18 years, and will continue to do so. I do not suggest for a moment that the objective has been entirely accomplished, but we intend that it shall be.
I should like to deal with the specific, necessary exemptions. It is not true to say that no consideration was given to young people who might need extra help. We have made a number of specific exemptions to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected from the change. It is important for the record that they should be spelt out. Persons needing care, support or supervision are wholly exempted, provided that their landlord is either a housing association, a registered charity or a voluntary organisation.

Mr. Field: If we are trying to protect those coming from care, why are just those particular groups exempted? Do we fear that private landlords would be exploitative?

Mr. Evans: I have indulged the hon. Gentleman several times, and each time he has simply moved on to the subject of my next paragraph. I shall explain this point at length, because the issue of people leaving care is extremely important. I shall explain it in two parts.
As the hon. Member for Withington pointed out, the instrument before us states at regulation 2(b):
who has ceased to be the subject of a care order pursuant to section 31(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989".
Two points arise from that. The first and major point is that it does not apply in Scotland. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Withington said, it does not cover all those who have had contact with local authorities under the broader provisions of the Children Act 1989. The hon. Gentleman quoted figures, with which I respectfully agree. There is a wider category.
I shall first discuss Scotland and then return to care orders. The problem in Scotland is that the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 introduced a very different regime from that appertaining in England for dealing with local authority powers over children, one of its aspects being that people who have been subject to courts and arrangements of that sort are dealt with similarly to those who have been taken into care in England for social reasons. There is no obvious easy way of drawing the line, and I am afraid that we were unable to achieve a happy resolution of the matter at the time when the regulations were laid, but work is continuing and I assure the House that we shall make provision for Scotland similar to that which is made for England, in time for the coming into effect of the regulations in the autumn.
Unhappily, the matter is made more complicated by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, passed by the present Parliament, which sweeps away the older arrangements of the 1968 Act in Scotland. Some parts of the 1995 Act are already in force, but as far as this instrument is concerned, the relevant parts are not yet in force, and I understand that they are not expected to come into force until April 1997. That is a matter of importance. We shall sort it out.

Mr. Dalyell: Briefly, all I ask is that, in this consideration, specific reference be made to the concerns of Glasgow Women's Aid and Women's Aid throughout Scotland about legislation being amended, so that they can continue to be paid weekly. I shall give the Minister the papers. If he gives me the assurance, I shall not interrupt again.

Mr. Evans: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall carefully look into that matter. We propose to make provision specifically for Scotland as soon as we can, and in any event before 7 October.

Mr. Welsh: I welcome the Minister's assurance and hope that he can deliver the goods when the time comes, but I am concerned that this situation arose in the first place. Why was it not noticed that Scotland was in a different position? Scottish Members of Parliament have a right to ask that, because we have specific legislation. Was it simply an oversight? Why did that situation arise?

Mr. Evans: It was not an oversight—we do not overlook Scotland, but it is difficult to fit the pattern of the English and Scottish legislation together so that a convenient dividing line can be drawn, which achieves what we wish to achieve. We shall do what we can to sort that out, and we intend to lay regulations to amend the position for Scotland.
A second issue, connected with the Scottish issue, is whether, in England, we have drawn the legislation too narrowly in respect of specific care orders. I have listened

to the representations made to the House this afternoon. Other representations have been made to us. I give an assurance that we shall go away and reconsider that aspect as well.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: rose—

Mr. Evans: I shall give way to deal with Northern Ireland as well, if I am asked to.

Mr. Forsythe: What consultation has the Minister had with the social security people in Northern Ireland about this matter? As he knows, it is handled differently in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Evans: Northern Ireland is not directly comparable because it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I shall convey the concerns expressed to him.
I was dealing with the exemptions to the under-25 principle, which I have illustrated. The third one is that we have exempted registered housing association tenants. Persons who are living in a household where a death has occurred are exempt for 52 weeks, and persons who could afford their rent prior to claiming benefit are exempt for 13 weeks. By drawing the exemptions in that fashion, we are targeting those in need and making arrangements which, coupled with the subsidy to local authorities to make discretionary payments in exceptional hardship, will provide a satisfactory outcome. I do not accept the point made by the hon. Member for Withington about discretionary budgeting in the course of the year. It is for local authorities to operate that scheme.
To summarise the first part of my speech, the changes for the under-25s will affect only single childless people who, basically, are seeking while on benefit to live beyond their means.
Before dealing with the second topic, I should make it clear that we shall monitor the change carefully to see what impact it has upon the market as a whole, as well as looking at the effectiveness of the change in respect of young people's choice of accommodation.

Mr. Frank Field: If it is shown during the monitoring that an increasing number of young people become homeless, what will the Minister do?

Mr. Evans: That is the most hypothetical of hypothetical questions. I shall monitor the change carefully and we shall see what happens. Obviously, it would be of concern to everybody in the House if the adverse consequences mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were to occur, but let us see.
I am conscious of the fact that, because I have given way, I have been speaking for longer than I had intended. I shall deal with the periodicity changes. Housing benefit is currently paid wholly or partly in advance at one, two or four-weekly intervals. It is normally sent to the claimant, who is then responsible for using it to pay his rent. In some circumstances, in order to protect the tenancy, the benefit is paid directly to the landlord, again normally in advance.
In practice, what happens now—before the instrument has come into effect—is that rent tends to be paid two weeks in advance and two weeks in arrears because of the


timing of the administration. However, payment in advance is inherently unsafe. It allows changes in circumstances that affect benefit entitlement, such as earnings from employment, to be taken into account at a later stage than they should be. Sometimes that leads to underpayment of benefit, thereby temporarily disadvantaging the claimant until the correct entitlement is restored. I am sure that we do not want that.
The serious concern for the Government in the context of the debate is that payment in advance sometimes leads to overpayment of benefit. Unfortunately, there are far too many overpayments—nearly £2 million in the private rented sector during 1994–95. Many of them are incurred quite innocently, but innocent or otherwise, I am sorry to say that it does not mean that recovery is not difficult.
We estimate that overpayments total about £400 million a year, including a staggering £165 million due to claimant error in the private rented sector alone.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman expressed concern that payment in advance is inherently unsafe. Has he considered that his policy could have been calculated to generate a culture of fraud? In future, paying housing benefit in arrears—four weeks later—will put young people particularly under great pressure to fail to conform to their contractual obligations, because landlords invariably seek payment in advance. Has the Minister considered that? Will he also consider for whom it is inherently unsafe? Has he considered the position of tenants on very low incomes, who will be placed in immense personal difficulty as a result of having somehow to find the money not only for the first four weeks' rent but for a deposit?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman raised a variety of points. Perhaps the most striking is the statement that landlords always expect their rent in advance. That is a result of market distortion arising out of rent restriction controls. Until 1919, the invariable practice was for rent to be paid in arrears. In the old days, the rent collector came round at the end of the week, not at the beginning of the week before the tenant had even lived there for a day. The long history of rent restriction this century has diminished the number of properties in the private rented sector, and landlords left in the market have been able to take advantage of the circumstances—partly created by the payment of housing benefit—and to demand rent in advance. In that situation, a form of bidding by the landlords takes place, based on the fact that the state will always pay.
We believe that there is a more appropriate way to help those faced with that situation, apart from removing the distortion in the market. Various rent deposit and guarantee schemes, run by local authorities and voluntary organisations, are springing up in different areas, and they are extremely successful. I have visited the scheme in Bristol and I was especially impressed that the guarantees are not usually called on, because all sides have played fair.
There is a real fraud problem, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security, will be aware as a result of his report, to which the Government replied today. The purpose of payment in arrears is to remove one possibility for fraud.
The hon. Member for Withington quoted the Social Security Advisory Committee repeatedly: and that committee has said that it is legitimate for the Department, to aim to reduce overpayments of housing benefit, and that some overpayments would be avoided or reduced by the proposal to pay in arrears.
The regulations will deal with another, smaller, fraud—the abuse of the first payment. Under the advance payment scheme, in some cases the claimant took the cheque, vanished, and never turned up at the landlord's property or paid the money over. Under the regulations, the cheque will be given to the claimant, because it is his benefit, but it will be made out in the name of the landlord, so that it can be used only for the purpose that Parliament intended. That was described by the SSAC as a sensible precaution, and I respectfully adopt it.
I invite my hon. Friends to reject the motion. Considerable savings will result from the regulations. For payments to under-25s, in the first year, the saving will be £15 million; it will be £60 million in the second year; £65 million in the third year; and £65 million a year thereafter. The periodicity changes will save £105 million in the first year; £120 million in the second; £75 million in the third; and £25 million a year thereafter. That totals £120 million in the first year; £180 million in the second; £140 million in the third; and £90 million a year thereafter. The interesting political question to which the country and the House will want to know the answer is whether, if the hon. Member for Withington were to invite his hon. Friends to vote against the regulations, we would see another Labour spending commitment on top of some £470 million made at Question Time on 21 May.

4.57

Dr. Lynne Jones: Groups ranging from the Young Homelessness Group to the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee, the Small Landlord's Association and the National Association of Estate Agents oppose the regulations. The Minister said that the regulations are designed to deal with abuses, yet he cannot give any real explanation of those abuses and how they will be dealt with. In its report "Housing in England, 1994–95", which was published in April, the Central Statistical Office found no evidence of such abuse by young people under 25.
The Government seem to think that housing benefit encourages young people to leave the family home and set up in luxurious apartments. There is no evidence for that. On the contrary, most young people who are forced into leaving home are not in a position to provide for themselves and they do not live in accommodation much different from that of others in their age group. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said, thousands of under-25s buy their homes, and they have been encouraged to do so by the Government and by a system under which it is better to get mortgage interest tax relief than no benefit. They are to be penalised.
There is no evidence of the kind of abuse that the Government say the regulations are designed to tackle. The real issue, which was admitted by the Minister, is tackling the rising cost of housing benefit. Who is responsible for that rise? The blame must be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Government and Conservative Members. When the Government repealed the Rent Acts that regulated private rents, they knew that people would not be able to afford market rents.
In 1988, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholas Ridley, said that housing benefit would be available to help tenants who could not afford the full market rent. He said that that was the key component of the Government's policy, and that it would ensure that deregulation did not price lower-income households out of the market.
As a result of the regulations, the housing benefit bill for the private rented sector will be about £4 billion a year and will accommodate a small fraction of the population. However, the bill for council housing will be £5.5 billion for a sector that is occupied by nearly a third of the population. The reason for the rise in housing benefit is clearly that private rents are high and because private landlords are able to demand them, but the public sector can produce housing at much lower cost.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The question seems simple. To hold down rents, we either have artificial rent controls and controls on what landlords can charge, or we set limits on what people should pay. The hon. Lady advocates state control of rents, but we simply say that we should limit what people should be expected to pay. If we do not do that, rents will continue to be forced up by the unlimited availability of housing benefit to pay the reference rent in particular areas. Reference levels have drifted up and up because they are underwritten by the state. Surely that must stop.

Dr. Jones: That is correct, but the people who rely on housing benefit are not in a bargaining position. There is a shortage, despite what the Government say about the increase in houses available in the private rented sector. The number has increased, but largely as a result of the collapse in the home ownership market because of falling prices. There is still a shortage in relation to demand, and I predict that, if the home ownership market picks up, which the Government hope will happen, there will be a further collapse in the availability of rented houses, particularly for students. I could give much evidence of that in my constituency.
Rents have been deregulated and gone up, councils are not able to build new homes, and vulnerable people are forced into the private sector. They have little bargaining power and they have to pay the rents that are demanded of them. Responsible local authorities have attempted to intervene in the market and to develop good relationships with the private sector. That has happened in Birmingham. In a debate last year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said:
In particular, we are keen to expand the role played by the private rented sector in offering accommodation to people in housing need. It is a mistake to assume that private rented accommodation will, by definition, be inadequate …
Local authorities themselves have also done a great deal. A number have introduced imaginative schemes to encourage local landlords to co-operate with them in housing families and others in need.
Private landlords are reluctant in normal circumstances to house people who are poor and in need, and that is why local authority interventions have been necessary. The Minister continued:
One approach that is achieving impressive results is the introduction of rent and deposit guarantee schemes. They give landlords the reassurances that they may require to house low-income tenants and can dramatically increase the chances of such households gaining access to rented accommodation."— [Official Report, 8 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 315.] 

That was a recognition by a Minister last year, which was recognised again by the Minister today, that people in housing need and on benefit need a leg up in getting private landlords to take them on, but while commending such schemes, the Government are undermining them.
I am the chair of the Birmingham bond scheme. We have arrangements with landlords on our approved lists, and we give rent deposits only to landlords who offer reasonable accommodation. That includes bed-sits. They are happy to co-operate with us because they know that the rent deposit will be guaranteed and because we have a good relationship with housing benefit agencies and can help to iron out any problems with bureaucracy. The effect of the regulations on rent, and the demand for payment of rent in advance, would undermine that scheme at a stroke.
These proposals follow those that were implemented in January and which limit rents to local reference rents. For those under the age of 25, there is no top-up allowance for the difference between the average rent in an area and that which the rent officer deems reasonable. Rents are being held down and will have to be paid in advance. I shall give an example of what that will mean to our scheme.
At the moment, our market-based rents are about £45 to £50 a week for a bed-sit and £65 to £80 a week for a one-bedroomed, self-contained flat. The rent officer has now restricted the rent for such properties to £32 and £45 a week. That means that landlords will no longer be willing to take on tenants. I have given the rents for reasonable accommodation that can be let, but people on low incomes will increasingly be forced into poor standard accommodation. At a stroke, the Government will undermine the good work that we have been doing and which has been commended by them.
The proposals are a crude device and do not offer adequate protection to vulnerable young people who cannot live with their families. I do not know why we think it so desirable that young people should continue to live with their families for as long as possible. I left home at the age of 18 when I went to university; I suspect that most Conservative Members also left home at an early age and were probably able to afford reasonable accommodation and may have been able to buy houses. When I was 22, like many of my colleagues, I was able to buy a house. Many people under the age of 25 want to live in reasonable accommodation. It is a good idea that, at the age of about 18, they should start to live in some kind of furnished accommodation, perhaps even in bed-sits if good quality ones are available.
I checked today on the rents for student accommodation that is offered in halls of residence in Birmingham. The rent for accommodation in a four-unit bed-sit is £30 to £50 a week. That is the kind of supportive environment in which we might want under-25s to live. However, quality bed-sit accommodation is not available. The Department of the Environment's consultation document on houses in multiple occupation states that 44 per cent. of HMOs were unfit.

Mr. Jenkin: It is always risky to talk in this place about our own experiences, but I shall join the hon. Lady in taking that risk. When I came back from university and started my first job, I lived at home for more than a year and then rented a room in a house. It was furnished


accommodation at modest cost. Is not that what we would expect young people to do? I was in my early 20s, but I did not become a home owner until my late 20s. The hon. Lady was a better capitalist than me. Young people are in a better position to make do, and we should expect them to take that course rather than to expect self-contained accommodation as of right at public expense.

Dr. Jones: It is reasonable for young people to progress from some kind of supported accommodation when they first leave home—that might not necessarily be the case—but I would expect it to be of reasonable quality. Rents for bed-sits of reasonable quality in Birmingham are between £45 and £50 a week, but much of the stock is inadequate and nobody wants to move into it; 44 per cent. of it is unfit and much of it is a fire risk. The Government, through these regulations, are encouraging the supply of substandard accommodation.
The combination of the one-room principle, the local reference rent and the demand for rents in advance has undermined the efforts to provide reasonable accommodation for young people. Most young people stay at home and, perhaps, do not want to leave, but many of the people we are talking about do not have a choice. They are forced out of their homes for reasons beyond their control.
I was fortunate in that I went to university, but if I had not I would not have been able to stay in the family home. Indeed, I was not able to do so during the vacation. I did not have the luxury of going back to what I would imagine in the case of the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) was a pleasant, large family home. I lived in a two-bedroomed council flat, which I shared with my sister, and had a mentally ill father. Those are the circumstances in which many young people live today.
In Birmingham, it is estimated that 4,000 to 5,000 people will be affected by these cuts. Young people who move into average accommodation today, where the full rent will be met, are likely to experience a cut of £15 to £20 per week in their benefit when it is reviewed in October. Let us also consider the young people who are currently working and, perhaps, renting a one-bedroomed flat. If they lose their job and fall on hard times, or if their income is cut and they are forced to rely on housing benefit, they will be given 13 weeks in which to find somewhere else to live. They will be forced to move out of their accommodation by these regulations. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Colchester, North thinks that that is a good thing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Withington said, there is also a disincentive for people who are currently in receipt of housing benefit, and who live in reasonable accommodation, to get work because they are worried that, if they fall on hard times, they will be forced out of their accommodation. They have little bargaining power. If they are on income support or are in work, they are expected to live on £37.90. That is what the benefits system assumes they need if they are on a low income and need housing benefit to top up their wages. That is £10 less than the figure for the over-25s. As a result of the regulations, young people will be under pressure to go down market into unsafe, unsuitable accommodation, and they will boost the market for cheap and poorly maintained properties.
Whether young people are in self-contained accommodation prior to January, or in supported schemes which are exempt, it will become impossible for them to move on while still on benefit without accepting a lower standard of accommodation. Places in supported schemes will then become blocked, making it impossible to provide appropriate accommodation for newly homeless youngsters escaping abuse or overcrowding.
If the Government are concerned about containing the housing benefit bill and about giving a reasonable chance in life to young people—nobody expects them to be able to live in luxury—they should reconsider their policies on housing and social security. They should encourage, for example, the provision of foyer-type schemes and support responsible local authorities that are setting up schemes with private landlords. In Birmingham, we have a landlords' charter. We have responsible lodging schemes, which January's regulations have affected. Schemes that were supported by social services now have to take a cut of some £60 a week. The unscrupulous who are providing accommodation for vulnerable people will continue to do so and charge the highest rent possible while providing appalling conditions for the young and vulnerable and mentally ill people.
The proposed regulations are an absolute disgrace and have been introduced as a result of the Government's disastrous housing policies. It is the Government who have forced up the cost of housing benefit.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), but she rather spoilt her speech at the end because she failed to offer any solution other than the old failed solutions. We can only assume that that is what she was offering, because she did not offer anything.
I shall use this opportunity to step back a little and look at this conceptually. There is a growing consensus across the House—I regret that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is not in his place—that there is too much means-testing in our benefits system. The more the benefits system grows, the more people are drawn into means-testing and the more people are subject to the perverse effects of means tests. The more generous housing benefit provision has become—even if only by virtue of the fact that rising rents have led to rising housing benefit, and increased unemployment has led to rising benefit levels—the more people have adapted to qualify for it. There is a consensus in the Social Security Select Committee that people adjust their circumstances to qualify for means-tested benefits. More people end up on benefit, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation will say that they are poor because they are on means-tested benefits.
How do we stop that trend? The Opposition complain about means testing, but they want to maintain the excessive generosity of such benefits and end up supporting the mechanism that creates the very problem that we need to deal with. Public expenditure grows as means-tested benefits generate their own demand.
Means tests generate a perverse moral climate. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead increasingly tells us in the Select Committee, what message does that send to people who are trapped in adverse circumstances? What a message to send to young people starting out in life: they


can afford better accommodation if they take housing benefit and remain unemployed. Naturally, the Government are absolutely right to do everything possible to make a contract between the unemployed receiving benefit and the Benefits Agency. One must be actively seeking work. That is certainly an improvement, but we can do more to remove the disincentives.
Are we happy with a system that effectively proclaims to every young person, "If you leave home without a job, the state will provide you with self-contained accommodation as a right"? Are we happy that the benefits system should in effect proclaim to parents, "Throw your teenagers out with impunity; the state will provide; you needn't be responsible for the people whom you have brought into the world"? The Labour party seems to be saying, "Your son and daughter will be given self-contained accommodation as a right."
Most working people who pay taxes, including a great many poor people, are aghast at the way in which the benefits system seems to subsidise life styles that people, particularly older people, never dreamed they would enjoy, even in their later years. Many young people on benefits are not just claiming benefits. Part of the perversity of means-tested benefits is that we encourage people to hide their entrepreneurialism, their natural affinity to work and to earn. Very often, people are taking a bit more on the side than they are letting the Benefits Agency know about.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that all too often the state appears to be taking over from human parents, to become an individual's parent in terms of financial and other support, which does not encourage personal responsibility among young people?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Concepts that are popular among Opposition parties include social exclusion and social cohesion. The worst way to create social cohesion is to atomise society by making the state more and more responsible for the individual's circumstances, instead of allowing the natural institutions of society—the family and community— to take their share of responsibility.

Dr. Lynne Jones: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have of the abuse that he claims? The Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that the Government should collate evidence to justify views of the sort that the hon. Gentleman is espousing—and only then introduce the regulations.

Mr. Jenkin: The Social Security Select Committee has just completed an extensive investigation into housing benefit fraud. It is argued that we have only scratched the surface and that Government figures grossly underestimate the scale of the problem. I do not fully accept that evidence, but that is erring on the side of caution. Labour Members have used the fraud issue to suggest that the Government are not exercising enough control.

Dr. Jones: I was referring not to abuse but to evidence to support the allegation that young people deliberately leave home to be mollycoddled by the state, and that it pays housing benefit to allow youngsters to live in luxurious accommodation.

Mr. Jenkin: I do not intend to produce such evidence now because the hon. Lady is using language that I did

not use. The more generous housing benefit is and the greater its availability to young people, the more they are likely to avail themselves of it. The only way to restore society's natural values is to make people more responsible for the consequences of their actions and to ensure that families take more responsibility for their young adult offspring.
These regulations are conceptually adjusting the priorities. It is just at the margin. We are not creating a revolution. We are only questioning the hierarchy of priorities. Is it that young people should take jobs and that families ought to take responsibility for them—or is it that young people should as of right occupy self-contained accommodation funded by the state? Obviously all young people have a right to dignified accommodation, but as its quality increases, who should be responsible for its provision? Should it not be more the responsibility of the individual and his or her family and less the responsibility of the state?
I look forward to the time when the values and expectations of people in this country have radically altered. New Labour is interested in the so-called stakeholding society of Singapore. When the Select Committee visited that country, it was interested to find that Singapore's equivalent of our Department of Social Security is determined to avoid the mistakes that western societies have made in creating state dependency and poverty traps. It is difficult to imagine how that determination is manifested without observing it at first hand. It is ironic that new Labour is so enamoured of the stakeholder model of Singapore but shies away when that country's social policies are implemented in the United Kingdom. Labour wants to cherry-pick one or two aspects of the Singapore model but leave the rest behind.
The key challenge to those of us who take an interest in the future of the UK social security system is in devising ways of restoring individual and family responsibility, by gradually removing from the state as humanely as possible the excessive responsibilities that it has taken on. The regulations do exactly that. They chip away at the expectation that young people should receive so much from the state so early in their lives.
The Labour party offers not a policy that tends towards responsibility, self-determination and individual empowerment but opposition that is very much old Labour. We heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Selly Oak a call for a return to rent controls, large public housing schemes and an ever-rising bill for housing benefit. That is not the recipe that has brought success to housing or social security policy in this country or any other in Europe or elsewhere in the world that has tried using large-scale public expenditure to solve social problems. We should aim at eventually achieving alternative models that give people social security in the fullest sense—not just satisfy our consciences by doling out large sums of public money.

Ms Liz Lynne: We cannot consider the regulations in isolation but must view them together with all the other Government measures that have affected under-25s. Since 1988, that age group has received lower income support. I have never understood why younger people are supposed to manage on less money than any others. Their food, clothing and other costs are exactly the same.
From October, the unemployment benefit element of the jobseeker's allowance for the under-25s will be reduced to income support level, yet again penalising that age group. That double action will mean that £10 a week will be lost to those young people.
We want facts, figures and other evidence from the Government to back their claims. The Government say that young people expect to live in bed-sits or shared accommodation, that housing benefit is an incentive for young people to leave home and that the current level of housing benefit encourages them to do so. Have any surveys been undertaken? If the Minister has time to reply, can he cite evidence to show how many of the 870,000 young people in question live in self-contained accommodation? We must have that figure before we can judge how the regulations will work.
Where is the evidence that young people are more likely to request or occupy more expensive accommodation than their contemporaries who are in employment? The Government have produced none. The Government talk about young people milking the system, but where is the proof? How many people go into shared accommodation?
The Government are attempting to change young people's life styles without giving us the facts behind their proposal. Even the Social Security Advisory Committee said that young unemployed people aged under 25 had the same general preference for accommodation as those in employment, and that no evidence suggests that young people are encouraged to leave home because they could get a flat on their own.
I fear that the regulations will make young people less mobile. The Government must deal with the fact that there are many legitimate reasons why young people leave home. They do so because, in some cases, they have been sexually or physically abused. They do not talk about it and they do not want to involve social services, but that is a good reason for their leaving home. It is not, therefore, that they are encouraged to leave because they are going to get a good housing benefit level. Some of those young people have genuine reasons.
Young people in self-contained accommodation are not going to move to find work. Surely the Government want young people to move around the country to find work, but, if they are in self-contained accommodation in one region, they will find that, if they move to find work but do not do so, they will end up in a bed-sit.
These changes could cause severe hardship for youngsters under 25 because the shortfalls between the rent and housing benefit must be met from somewhere. If those young people cannot find rented accommodation at the rent levels that will be set, because of the jobseekers' provisions and all the other debts that they will get into, they could face poverty. In the long term, quite a few of them could face homelessness.
Many of those people will be forced into potentially dangerous accommodation. Some of the standards in multiple-occupancy accommodation are not good. I do not know whether the Minister has been around such accommodation, but I have. Some of it is a fire risk and some a death trap.
Even the Children's Society was coming out against all young people being forced into multi-occupancy accommodation. It was talking about vulnerable young

people, who find it difficult to communicate with each other and who would have a problem sharing a bathroom, a kitchen, a stove or washing-up facilities. The problem is that, if they could not cope with that shared accommodation, they could find themselves out on the streets.
The Minister has talked about giving concessions for young people coming out of care, and I am glad that he is considering taking that further. I am also pleased that he is considering Scotland as well, because that was an oversight. I am glad that he will deal with that problem. I am also concerned about young people in bed-sit accommodation. They could be subjected to drugs, harassment and abuse. I am not saying that that would happen in all multi-occupancy accommodation, but the Minister should be considering that point.
In relation to the change from paying rent in advance to paying rent in arrears and not paying any deposits, many of those young people will not be able to find accommodation because multi-occupancy houses will not be available and, if they are, landlords will probably not take them in.
The problem is that, once landlords know that under-25s are allowed to go into only bed-sit or multi-occupancy accommodation, standards will fall. Many more investigators will have to check the standards of those properties, because some landlords will be good and will meet their responsibility but some will not. I hope that the Minister is aware of the Government's responsibility in that.
Certain young people face a harsh future with these regulations, which come in next October. As I have said, some will face homelessness and some will face living in poor accommodation. I hope that the Government will think again before it is too late. I will vote to revoke the regulations.

Mr. David Shaw: My big concern in the debate is that I have not heard anything from Opposition Members that shows concern for taxpayers in all this. It is taxpayers who must find the money to pay for housing benefit. Often, they pay for many people to have housing benefit to live in accommodation that is better than that in which the taxpayers themselves live.
Housing benefit is a £10 billion a year benefit. It costs every working man and woman in this country about £400 a year, so it is up to the House of Commons to ensure that the benefit is paid to people in genuine need and that it is not open to abuse; one of the concerns of the Social Security Select Committee has been that, in our investigations, we have found considerable housing benefit abuse.
Many stories are around. I am sure that many Members of Parliament have been told the wide-ranging stories of abuse, some of which one may not be able to prove, but which are worrying. The fact that the Government are proposing to tighten housing benefit is to be welcomed by taxpayers and by hon. Members. We must encourage young people not to become adept at claiming housing benefit but to use their skills and abilities to obtain work.
What I have found is that no young person will suffer as a result of these changes. The evidence is that they will still be able to afford reasonable accommodation of


a reasonable quality at a reasonable price. If, however, they conspire with landlords to receive a larger amount of money out of the taxpayer, as a result of the changes, that will not work.
The Opposition have been calling for evidence. I will tell them of some staggering evidence in my constituency surgery. A young person recently came in and demanded that I get him housing benefit of £100 a week for a self-contained unit of accommodation in the Dover region. I happen to know that, in that region, it is possible for many people to find accommodation costing between £60 and £80 a week.
There are many properties of below £100 a week, but that young person decided that that was the accommodation that he wanted and that he expected the taxpayer to pay for, despite the fact that many middle-aged and elderly people in my constituency are claiming housing benefit at only £40 to £60 a week, and are living in much more modest, but reasonable and acceptable, accommodation. The state should not be providing £100 a week when it is possible to live reasonably in reasonable accommodation at much less than that.
This measure is fair because it contains safeguards. Local authorities will still have the discretion to pay benefit above the average cost of shared accommodation, especially where there are examples of exceptional hardship. The other reasonable point here is that the new limit for housing benefit is to be introduced only at the average cost of non-self-contained accommodation in the region. By having regard to the average cost, the Government have been reasonable.
There are plenty of statistics around. District valuers and others are competent at assembling valuation statistics. I do not see why councils, using similar techniques, are not capable of establishing good figures on the average accommodation cost, or, therefore, why we cannot operate a housing benefit system that is much more related to real cost that can be measured and recorded.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the question, pursuant to Order [21 May].

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 273.

Division No. 137]
[5.38 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Ainger, Nick
Boateng, Paul


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Keith


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, N(N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Austin-Walker, John
Byers, Stephen


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Callaghan, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Battle, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell-Savours, D N


Beggs, Roy
Canavan, Dennis


Bell, Stuart
Cann, Jamie


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chidgey, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Chisholm, Malcolm


Berry, Roger
Church, Judith





Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Ingram, Adam


Clelland, David
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Coffey, Ann
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Harry
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corston, Jean
Jowell, Tessa


Cousins, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Khabra, Piara S


Cunningham, Roseanna
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dafis, Cynog
Kirkwood, Archy


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Darling, Alistair
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Livingstone, Ken


Denham, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
Lynne, Ms Liz


Donohoe, Brian H
McAllion, John


Dowd, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Ian


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Robert


Etherington, Bill
McCrea, The Reverend William


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Macdonald, Calum


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McFall, John


Fatchett, Derek
McKelvey, William


Faulds, Andrew
Mackinlay, Andrew


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McLeish, Henry


Flynn, Paul
Maclennan, Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
McWilliam, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Madden, Max


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maddock, Diana


Fraser, John
Mandelson, Peter


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Galbraith, Sam
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Galloway, George
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Maxton, John


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Gerrard, Neil
Meale, Alan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michael, Alun


Godman, Dr Norman A
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Rhodri


Grocott, Bruce
Morley, Elliot


Gunnell, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hanson, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mudie, George


Harvey, Nick
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Doug
Murphy, Paul


Heppell, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hodge, Margaret
Olner, Bill


Horne Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pike, Peter L


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)






Prescott, Rt Hon John
Stevenson, George


Purchase, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Radice, Giles
Straw, Jack


Raynsford, Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rendel, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Timms, Stephen


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Tipping, Paddy


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trickett, Jon


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Rooney, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Walley, Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Salmond, Alex
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Andrew


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Short, Clare
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wray, Jimmy


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Wright, Dr Tony


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spellar, John
Mr. Joe Benton and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mrs. Jane Kennedy.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clappison, James


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Coe, Sebastian


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Congdon, David


Ashby, David
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dicks, Terry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bowis, John
Elletson, Harold


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evennett, David


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butler, Peter
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Butterfill, John
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carttiss, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Cash, William
French, Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fry, Sir Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gale, Roger


Churchill, Mr
Gallie, Phil





Gardiner, Sir George
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, Sir John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sweeney, Walter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sykes, John


MacKay, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Madel, Sir David
Thomason, Roy


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Major, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm






Thurnham, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Wilkinson, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Willetts, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilshire, David


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Noes:


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Watts, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before we embark on the next debate and start to use up the time allowed for it, I should like to raise a point of order on that time limit. The Order Paper states that the debate will last only one and a half hours, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B(1).
You will be aware that, on the last page of the statutory instrument, five European Community documents are cited as the base legislation on which it has come before us. I was minded to table amendments in relation to those documents, which—if selected—would have dealt with the need for the documents, their integrity and their merits. I have refrained from doing so because of the time limit on the debate.
Could you confirm that the debate would not be confined to an hour and a half if this statutory instrument had been debated before 2 November last year and that it could have gone on until as late as 11.30 pm, which would have allowed a wide-ranging debate had I tabled those amendments and had they been selected? Could you confirm that that is the fact that now confronts the House in debating these important matters?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That may all be true, but the current rules of the House allow only one and a half hours for the next debate. Those are the rules under which the House operates.

Orders of the Day — Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on all Back Benchers' speeches for the duration of this debate.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move,
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1242), dated 7th May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.
I appreciate that many hon. Members want to speak in this debate, and I shall try to keep my comments as brief as possible. I hope that hon. Members will show some forbearance with interventions as I expect to cover most concerns in what I shall say.
I suspect that it will be helpful to the House if I put this order in context with what the European Commission said last week about decommissioning. Last Wednesday, the European Commissioner with responsibility for fisheries, Mrs. Bonino, held a press conference—of which we were given no notice—to outline her proposals for the next round of decommissioning, which is intended to take the European Community from now until the year 2002.
It is difficult for me to help the House in any detail on those proposals as they have not yet been tabled by the Commission, but judging from the reports of the press conference, the impact of Mrs. Bonino's proposals, if adopted, would be cuts of up to 40 per cent. in parts of the United Kingdom fishing fleet. That is wholly unacceptable.
Mrs. Bonino went on to describe the UK fishing industry as being among the "bad boys" in Europe for not having met existing decommissioning targets. Such a description is somewhat galling for the UK fishing industry, particularly as Mrs. Bonino described countries such as Spain as being among the good guys. What she failed to connect, of course, was the ability of Spanish fishing interest to move into the UK fleet. It is easier for Spain to meet her decommissioning targets when a significant number of Spanish-skippered, Spanish-owned and Spanish-crewed vessels are masquerading as UK boats and catching fish against the UK national quota. That is a crazy situation which cannot be allowed to continue. The European Commission cannot be surprised that the UK fishing industry is not and will not be prepared to contemplate any further substantial reductions in the UK fishing fleet until the Commission tackles and deals with the whole issue of quota hoppers.
When Mrs. Bonino was in the UK recently, she gave the impression that there might be some simple way within the existing rules which, if only the UK Government were to take it, would enable us to eliminate quota hoppers within a short time. No one is keener than I am to see the quota hoppers dealt with without delay and for UK fish to be available for UK fishermen. I therefore immediately instructed officials to explore in detail with Commission officials what it was that Mrs. Bonino was suggesting that we might do to tackle quota hoppers.
I am bound to tell the House that, on further detailed investigation, it became clear that there was no immediate solution that the Commission could offer. I am sorry that


responsible newspapers such as The Independent, presumably on the basis of Commission briefing, have suggested that there is such a remedy available. There is not, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we shall be seeking to deal with the whole problem of quota hoppers at the intergovernmental conference.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

Mr. Tony Marlow: Given the nonsense coming out of Brussels and especially that uttered by Mrs. Bonino, given the nonsense of the common fisheries policy and especially the discard policy, and given that the Government are raising the issue of quota hoppers at the IGC, may I suggest that we go one stage further and seek a fundamental renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, not least so that we could control our own waters, no doubt with the same pattern—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about decommissioning only.

Mr. Baldry: We should at all times show leadership in the European Union and in the fundamental reforms of the common fisheries policy that we seek.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I must make progress; this is only a short debate.
The straightforward fact is that upwards of 150 UK-registered vessels are now owned, or part owned, by foreign interests, mainly from Spain and the Netherlands. They represent some 20 per cent. of our offshore fleet and take a significant proportion of UK quotas of fish such as hake, plaice, megrim, sole and monkfish. Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. The Commission and the European Community must take action to deal with quota hoppers.

Mr. Paul Tyler: rose—

Mr. John Sykes: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I give way first to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes).

Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister recall that the issue of decommissioning and quota hopping was mentioned when I brought a delegation to see him on 27 November? He told us that it was not possible to deal with the matter in the context of the IGC. Will he consider specifically quota-hopping flag boats which have not, as I understand it, been involved in the decommissioning scheme at all, except for perhaps one boat? If the scheme continues as it is, 50 per cent. of certain species, notably hake and plaice, could be taken from our quota by quota-hopping, flag of convenience foreign boats.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate. Many hon. Members have put their names down to speak, but the hon. Gentleman was not one of them. Long interventions are not helpful.

Mr. Baldry: Let me make it absolutely clear that, as I have just said, at the IGC we intend to deal fully with the issue of quota hoppers. The Community has to take action to deal with quota hoppers. The current crazy situation cannot continue.
I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough, but I think that this must be the last intervention that I accept.

Mr. Sykes: I represent Scarborough and Whitby. Is the Minister aware of the tidal wave of anger and frustration that has swept my constituency over the question of decommissioning? Is it not time that this country decided for itself what constitutes its own waters? Should not Britannia show Mrs. Bonino the way and declare a 200-mile limit around our shores?

Mr. Baldry: I regularly meet representatives of the fishing industry. I met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation the day before yesterday, and I am glad that they very much support the line that I am taking. I work very closely with the UK fishing industry. Indeed, I see my role as doing what is in its best interests. If there is to be fishing in the European Union against national quotas, it makes sense that the quotas benefit the fishing communities of individual nations rather than the vessels of other European Union member states which rarely, if ever, visit the countries concerned—let alone bring any economic benefit—but simply catch their fish against those countries' fishing quotas.
We have told the IGC, the Commission and other member states that we shall be tabling changes to the treaty which should enable individual member states to adopt appropriate measures to ensure that their fishing communities and related industries are able to benefit fully from the national quotas allocated under Community fishing policy.
There will be an initial discussion, but no decision, on the Commission's latest proposals on fleet structure and fishing effort at the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg next week. In any event, the full proposals have not yet been issued. I shall be making it clear that, until real and substantial progress is made on tackling quota hoppers, the Commission cannot be surprised that we shall not be ready to agree how to reduce further the UK fishing fleet. I shall, however, be making a number of other points.
I do not want there to be any scintilla of a suggestion that, when progress is made on quota hoppers, we shall simply accept any restructuring or decommissioning targets that the Commission wishes to set—far from it. First, the Commission's proposals for the next round are apparently based on a report by scientists known as the Lassen report, which makes recommendations as to where fishing effort should be reduced in Community waters but, bizarrely, makes no recommendation for reducing industrial fishing. It appears that the proposals, which currently look as though they might reduce UK fishing effort by up to 40 per cent., would have absolutely no impact on industrial fishing—a form of fishing which is


carried out on a huge scale and has implications for much of the marine ecosystem. It is very difficult to agree fisheries conservation measures which seek to cut pretty well every other aspect of the fishing fleet if they leave industrial fishing untouched. It is quite bizarre.
We are all aware, and the UK fishing industry recognises, that fishing is a hunting activity and that it is important that there are sustainable levels of fish left in the sea. As the recent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology made clear, the world's fish stocks are in a state of crisis. That report concluded by saying:
in their heart of hearts, scientists, fishermen, managers and politicians must all know that action must be taken now
if we are to prevent a repeat of episodes like the collapse of the Grand Bank stocks. Indeed, the scientists tell us that almost 60 per cent. of the main stocks in the waters that we fish have now been reduced to a level where there is a real risk of biological collapse. Even allowing for all the uncertainties and variables which characterise fisheries management, the stark warning in such messages is clear.
With improved technology, modern vessels are simply more efficient machines for killing fish, and fishing effort has to be matched to what the stocks will bear. Clearly there is a need to reduce fish mortality, but the Commission's proposals on decommissioning simply translate killing capacity into tonnage. Fishing vessels vary enormously, however, and it is again somewhat strange to believe that 1 tonne of an older fishing trawler has the same killing capacity as 1 tonne of a modern, large, well-equipped fishing vessel, with radar and other technology which is able with a good degree of accuracy to target, catch and kill large quantities of fish.

Mr. Alex Salmond: rose—

Mr. Baldry: Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. I am sure that I shall cover any issue that the hon. Gentleman intends to raise.
Britain has, on average, a somewhat older fishing fleet than many other member states. We need to ensure that any future structural scheme takes adequate account of the age and killing capacity of the vessels involved and does not simply assume that every tonne of every fishing vessel has an equivalent killing capacity.
I shall also be making it clear next week, when these matters are raised, that countries such as Britain, which spends some £25 million on fisheries protection and enforcement-through the Royal Navy, among other means—should be given credit for that in relation to member states in which, the Commission has acknowledged, enforcement seems to be somewhat less effective.
Clearly, any fishing reduction or effort-control targets must be properly policed. There is a need to match fishing effort to available fish in the sea. Much more work and much more study is required on any proposals that the Commission might bring forward to ensure that they meet the needs adequately and fairly. While that work is going on, we shall expect real progress in considering and taking forward the tackling of quota hoppers.
It is also somewhat galling to be described as being among the "bad boys" of Europe when the European Commission persists in using figures that we have

repeatedly told it are incorrect and which give the impression that the UK fishing fleet has increased in recent years. That is not so, and the facts are straightforward. In the past three years, 436 boats have been decommissioned and £26.2 million has been spent on decommissioning. That is a sizeable number of boats—and a substantial amount of money—and represents 6.6 per cent. of the original UK fishing fleet.
There has been wider confusion in the Commission about the UK's past performance and, sadly, a tendency not to compare like with like in publishing tonnage figures. We have been discussing a range of technical points with the Commission and have requested that it make a number of necessary adjustments to our multi-annual guidance programme figure. Once those corrections have been agreed, I believe that we shall be within a handful of percentage points of our target. This scheme will take us closer still.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: rose—

Mr. Baldry: As I have said, everyone recognises the need to match fishing effort properly to available fish in the sea. This statutory instrument is designed to deal with our commitments to reduce fishing capacity and to meet targets that are due to expire at the end of this year.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he give an assurance that the motion is being introduced purely and simply to help the conservation of fish and has no other ramifications?

Mr. Baldry: The motion completes our obligations under the decommissioning programme. The programme's only objective is to try to match fishing effort to available fish in the sea. It is a continuation of the scheme that was already in place last year.
During the debate last year, a number of suggestions were made about possible improvements to the scheme. I and my hon. Friends who have responsibility for fishing in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland promised to listen carefully to what was said. We have listened. I gave a commitment to seek industry views on what could be done and to reconsider the position in relation to the specific queries that were raised about the scheme last year.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: If the hon. Gentleman allows me, I might tell him some good news.
I gave a commitment, for example, to consider the position on the eligibility of nephrops vessels in the light of subsequent developments. I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have been able to meet almost all the concerns raised in the consultation exercise and significantly to expand the 1996 scheme to make it more attractive and better value for money. It might be helpful if I outline briefly those changes and the principle features of the proposed scheme.
In essence, the changes relate to the eligibility criteria, which we have widened considerably. In particular, we have reduced the number of qualifying days spent fishing from 100 to 75. We have removed the restrictions on


licence type to allow any licensed vessel over 10 m in registered length to apply. That will, of course, allow applications from shell fishermen and from vessels in the Nephrops and distant water segments. I know that that is very much welcomed by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishing Federation. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), has had a number of very useful discussions with the SFF on that very point.
In the consultation exercise, I suggested the possibility of allowing vessel owners to retain or dispose separately of their decommissioned vessel's track record. The response demonstrated no support for such arrangements. Again, we listened to the industry and have decided not to proceed with that suggestion. In response to a number of understandable concerns, I have introduced a greater degree of flexibility to permit historic vessels to be preserved afloat. That can be done while safeguarding public funds by allowing such vessels to be placed with registered museums. I very much hope that that will enable what is clearly a valuable part of our maritime heritage to be retained for future generations.

Mr. Gill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: I have already given way to my hon. Friend.
The scheme was launched on 9 May and applications must be submitted before 25 June. Application forms and details of the scheme have been available in local port offices for some time, and it is clearly in the interests of anyone who wishes to apply to do so as soon as possible.
Before concluding, I should like to make one further announcement concerning the Seafish Industry Authority's application for a grant towards its promotional campaign to encourage greater consumption of fish and hence provide better market conditions in future. I am pleased to say that a grant of just over £2.5 million has been approved and will be paid over the next three years.
As the UK Fishing Minister, I have only one interest: to promote the best interests of the UK fishing industry. I think that everyone in the industry recognises that there must be sustainable levels of fishing if the industry is to have a secure future well into the next century. With improved technology, modern vessels are more efficient machines for killing fish. Fishing effort has to be matched to what stocks will bear. The 1996 decommissioning scheme is part of our strategy to ensure that the UK fleet can remain viable, better match available fishing opportunities, and continue to contribute to the renewal of the very fishing resources on which so many livelihoods depend and which I am determined will have a strong future well into the next century. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I welcome the Minister's recognition of some of concerns of the industry and Opposition Members in the new regulations and the multi-annual guidance programme—especially the more flexible approach and the inclusion of nephrops boats in the decommissioning scheme.
Opposition Members also welcome the fact that, after lengthy correspondence, the Minister has made provision for some historically interesting boats to be bought by trusts and museums so that they can be preserved. I only hope that that policy does not lead to too many fishing boats ending up in museums.
Now that the Minister has recognised that historically interesting boats can be preserved and need not be destroyed, will he extend the policy to the sale of boats to waters outside the European Union, and, indeed, to overseas aid schemes, on which I know he has received representations from myself and groups?
This debate has been overshadowed by Mrs. Bonino's recent announcement about the 40 per cent. cut in fleet capacity. The Minister was quite right to stress that. There is a serious problem with fish stocks, which the industry recognises, and progress must be made to ensure that the capacity is matched to the available fish stocks. Opposition Members think that the 40 per cent. cut on top of what has already been agreed is just not acceptable. I am quite sure that the Minister agrees that the figure is open to negotiation. We certainly look to the Government to ensure that negotiations result in a more realistic figure.
Opposition Members also want to ensure that the figure is based on sound science. The Minister referred to the Lassen report that brought about the proposal. Although there is a need for effort control, I hope that the Government not only succeed in reducing the 40 per cent. cut but try to get the Commission to accept that effort control need not just be fleet reduction. It can also concern technical conservation gear. I know that the industry—the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishing Federation—has submitted detailed proposals to the Ministry on how technical conservation gear can reduce effort, and I very much hope that they are taken seriously.
I also endorse what the Minister said about the disgraceful omission of industrial fishing. It is remarkable that a serious study on fish stocks has not taken into account the impact of overfishing in industrial fishing, and the effect it has on the overall ecology of the sea.
I welcome the Minister's strong comments about industrial fishing. I regret, however, that the Government gave financial aid to a fish meal plant in the United Kingdom based on industrial fishing. I only wish that they had thought about the impact of industrial fishing in the way the Minister did tonight when they were considering that particular grant.
The report concentrates on weaker stocks. That is understandable, but it does not take into account the impact of the figures. The fact that the United Kingdom fleet is older than many of the more modern fleets that have taken advantage of grants needs to be worked into the equation.
As the Minister said, the report does not take into account the impact of flag vessels on the United Kingdom register that represent 20 per cent. of the fleet fishing some stocks. That is an amazing figure. He said that action needed to be taken, and that Mrs. Bonino was considering what should be done. However, he could have produced some firm proposals to put to the Commission on how the problem of flag vessels should be tackled.

Mr. Sykes: My hon. Friends need no lectures whatsoever from Labour, as their leader says that he will


never be isolated in Europe. If he had his way, we would be sold lock, stock and barrel to the European Commission, with all that that entails.

Mr. Morley: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. We are having a serious debate on serious matters, not the rubbish put out by Tory central office. I have been concentrating on the central issues; however, I should stress that the Labour party argued for decommissioning and other measures, for years before the Government implemented them. We have also argued for technical conservation measures and working with the European Union to address some of the problems.
One of the main reasons why we have an aging fleet and why we are have these problems is that we were the last country in Europe to introduce the decommissioning scheme, and that should be taken into account.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that, for the past 17 years, the Tory Government have been responsible for running down the fishing fleet around the coast of Britain? As there will be a general election in the next 12 months, they are now singing a different tune. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather odd that the Government, who are vetoing everything blanket fashion in the Common Market, are not voting against tonight's proposal?

Mr. Morley: The tone of the Minister's speech has subtly changed in recent debates. He seems to have moved towards a more Eurosceptic point of view. That demonstrates the weakness of the Government and the fact that the tail is wagging the dog.
I return to the serious problems and issues that must be addressed. There has been a history of mismanagement of the fisheries industry in Britain, and it does not all involve the European Union. There has been a great deal of mismanagement of Government policy, and the delay in decommissioning is only one aspect of it.
Will the Minister consider how we should deal with the flag ships? Does he have any firm proposals? Both the Minister and the Prime Minister have said that they intend to deal with flag vessels. That is fine, and we agree, but what are the Government's proposals? How do they intend to address the issue?
Some minor issues that Opposition Members have repeatedly raised have been ignored. They include the national insurance contributions from the crews of flag vessels, the requirement for British officers to captain those ships, and the proportionate use of United Kingdom port facilities. I do not dispute that there are difficulties, but the Government ought to consider them and draw up proposals.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): We are.

Mr. Morley: The Minister says, "We are." I hope that he will spell out some of those proposals tonight. He might like to consider raising with the Commission an extension of the decommissioning scheme in order to buy out some of the flag vessels that are currently on our register. I agree that the way in which foreign vessels have flagged out on our register to fish on our fish stocks is certainly an abuse of national quotas and fish stocks.

Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House that he agrees with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who said on 19 December:

It is unacceptable that we should be decommissioning vessels to facilitate additional fishing opportunities in waters around the UK for the fishing industry of one of our European partners-4n this case Spain."?— [Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1358.]
Does he agree with that?

Mr. Morley: It is totally unacceptable that we should be asking UK fishermen to decommission to make way for vessels from other member states. That is not acceptable to the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East was quite right about that.
To return to the reduction of effort and the abuse of the flag vessels, there is a lesson of regulation for the Government to learn. We need to make progress in dealing with that and addressing our own reduction figure.
When we were termed the bad boys of Europe by Mrs. Bonino, she was referring not to the fishing industry but to the Government. We have made very little progress towards our target set by the MAGP. The Minister said that he intends to announce how near we are to that target, but hon. Members may have noticed that there was no such announcement tonight. It would be helpful if the Minister would tell the House what progress has been made and how near we are to meeting those targets.
I know that the Minister is having discussions, but some of those discussions on how the targets are met and the way in which the figures are calculated depend on the good will of the European Commission and whether it will accept the Government's interpretation of them. We are all aware that the present atmosphere is somewhat strained.

Mr. Keith Mans: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should make rather faster progress towards those targets? Would that not mean further cuts in the amount of fish that British fishermen can fish?

Mr. Morley: I shall come to that point in a moment, but, as the Minister said, the industry recognises there has to be some reduction, in order to match our fishing capacity to available fish stocks. There is no argument about that, but we can certainly argue about the level of the reduction, the basis of the calculation and the science being used. There is a great deal of debate on those issues.
As for meeting the reduction, Labour has long argued that, if there has to be some reduction within the present targets—not the 40 per cent. that I consider is not sustainable and will not be imposed in the United Kingdom, but the scheme that has been agreed as part of the four-year programme—it should have been front-loaded in the first place. If we agree that there should be a reduction in the fleet, surely it would be better that it should happen as quickly as possible to help those who want to get out of the industry to do so, and to make more fish available for those who want to remain in the industry. In that respect, the Minister still has an option of bringing forward the £13 million that is earmarked for next year.

Dr. Godman: Both the Minister and my hon. Friend have referred to our aging fleets. In essence, we are talking about the reduction of an aging national fleet. At the same time, we must talk about the renewal of the remaining smaller fleet. Particularly on the west coast of Scotland, we need new vessels to replace our drastically aging fleet.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about a real problem within the industry. If we made some


progress with decommissioning, the Government would be eligible for the rebuilding grants that have benefited other countries for some years, and have enabled them to modernise their fleets. Even under the present system, a scrap and build policy that takes into account the aggregation would attract some grants. The Government might like to discuss that with the Commission.
It is clear that the common fisheries policy has failed in respect of sustainable fisheries management. It does not have the confidence of the industry, and in that respect needs a radical reform. The Opposition certainly emphasise that. The Minister said that the Government will raise the issues of reform of the CFP and of flag ships at the IGC, and we very much welcome that. I hope that they make some progress, and that they get some co-operation. But the present policy has been too little, too late, to deal with the problems of the fishing industry, and it does not provide the industry with an option. It is vital that the Government make firm proposals to ensure that we have a sustainable future for our fleet, so that many of our boats do not end up in maritime museums.

Mr. David Harris: In my opinion, it would be nonsense if the House voted against the motion tonight. The industry is in favour of the scheme, and, in a brief circulated to most hon. Members with fishing interests, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations described the terms of the statutory instrument as "uncontroversial fine-tuning". I am sure that that is right.
I speak as a member of the all-party Back-Bench alliance that fought hard and long to have a second decommissioning scheme introduced. If we stop the decommissioning scheme as it is constituted at present, there would rightly be howls of anguish from the industry. However, I have some reservations about the impact of the decommissioning scheme.
During the last round, for example, there was a concentration of activity regarding the number of boats in certain ports to be decommissioned. In Newlyn, the decommissioning scheme reduced almost at a stroke the catching capacity of the boats there, although other boats were introduced to the area.
The background to the debate tonight is perhaps not so much the details of the scheme included in the statutory instrument, as the remarks by Commissioner Bonino, who called for a 40 per cent. reduction in certain sections of the fleet—albeit across the European Community as a whole for certain sections. Her comments provoked yet more howls of anguish from our fishermen, who were right to protest about the proposal.
The hon.Member for Glanford and Scunthoipe (Mr. Morley) referred to the Lassen report, upon which Commissioner Bonino apparently based her remarks. That report is quite clearly flawed, and all the informed comment, particularly from the NFFO and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, shows its defects. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely correct to focus on the fact that we have an aging fleet, whereas some of the boats in the Spanish fleet in particular are modern vessels.
The report therefore did not compare like with like. We must dismiss some aspects of the report, and the rather crude and unrealistic call by Commissioner Bonino. If her

proposal was ever implemented—I do not think it ever will be—it would spell devastation for many of our fishing communities, and for the industry as a whole.
My complaint about Mrs. Bonino's rather superficial remarks is that, in putting forward this "solution", she ignores the basic defects of the CFP. There is a consensus in this House—irrespective of one's attitude towards Europe—that the CFP is, not working, and is in fact anti-conservationist. It is not good enough for the Commission to say that we should somehow cut our fleet, as if that were the answer to the problem. It is not, although it may be a part of the answer.
Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, I accept that there will have to be some scaling down of the fleet, and the industry agrees. I regret that, but I do not believe in kidding people. However, if we do not radically reform the CFP, we shall gain nothing by reducing the size of the fleet. We must carry out a root-and-branch reform of the CFP—that is the imperative.
We must also deal with the vexed question of quota hoppers. I have been fighting this wretched business of quota hoppers—or flag of convenience vessels as we called them in the old days—for more than 15 years. I have been spelling out the dangers and what they would lead to long before Spain came into the Community, and that is when action should have been taken. I deplore the fact that the effective action proposed in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and overruled by the High Court was not taken before Spain came into the Community. If action had been taken, we would not have the problems we face today.
I am indebted to the NFFO for spelling out the present position in stark statistical terms. Do people not realise that, at the moment, much of our quota is not in British hands and does not belong to British fishermen or our industry? Some 46 per cent. of our hake quota and 44 per cent. of our plaice quota is owned by foreign interests, mainly Spanish. For megrim, the figure is 35 per cent., for monkfish it is 29 per cent., and for sole it is 18 per cent. It is well documented that 20 per cent. of the tonnage of our fleet is owned by foreign interests, mainly Spanish and Dutch. That is intolerable and totally unacceptable. No wonder our fishermen are seething with anger, and we were daft to allow this situation to develop. We must put a stop to it.
Having said that, I very much welcome the robust remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister in his immediate response to Commissioner Bonino's irresponsible statement a week ago. I also welcome the pledge by the Prime Minister that, if necessary, we will look for treaty changes to deal with the central issue of quota hopping.
I must say that I am sceptical about the outcome. I was in Spain two weeks ago with other members of a Committee, and we met the Spanish Foreign Minister. The reaction of the Spanish Government to our promise to pursue the matter if necessary at the IGC was to beg Britain not to do so, and they made it clear that they would use the veto if we did. What incensed me was that the Spanish said that there is no problem, despite the figures that I have quoted to the House. It is a huge problem.
We have just as much of a fight on our hands on quota hopping as we have with beef, and it will be a test of the determination of the Government and the Prime Minister to force a solution to the problem. I hope that we will succeed—and we must succeed, in the interests of our


fishing industry and our fishermen. They must be our prime concern in this House, irrespective of party position. There is a huge consensus in the House, especially among those of us who have the honour to represent fishing constituencies. We need results. This is not just a game—I say that with the greatest respect to some of my hon. Friends who comment on these issues.
An industry is at stake here. We must ensure that we defend its rights and those of the United Kingdom. We must pass the statutory instrument, but we must not lose sight of the tremendous battle ahead of us on quota hopping and reform of the common fisheries policy, because the industry's future depends on it.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I realise that time is short for the debate, and that several hon. Members wish to take part, so I shall try to be as brief as I can. I will put four questions to the Minister, in the hope that he will be able to respond to them.
The first question, which has already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and by the Minister, relates to the importance of technical conservation. I should like the Minister to say what stage he has reached in discussions with his European partners and the Commission in pursuing measures on technical conservation. In particular, my constituency fishermen are interested in square mesh panels, which they consider a sensible way forward. Those panels are cheap and effective, and their use is supported by the fishermen. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether he has taken up such measures with the Commission, and what progress he made.
My second question echoes the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the restructuring and modernising of older parts of the fleet. Have the Government any plans in that respect, and if so, exactly what are they? Are they working on measures to help to renew the older parts of the fleet?
My third question, which has already been raised, is what proposals the Minister has for solving the quota hopper problem. It is important that he should begin to share with the House some of his ideas on that issue, which is at the heart of the crisis we face in the industry at the moment.
In the light of the debacle over the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, it is important that the Minister shares his ideas with us at the earliest possible moment, so that we can discuss them and perhaps probe whether they offer our best solution. I remember the debates in Committee on the Merchant Shipping Act, when the Government's suggestions were criticised. The Government were told that their proposals simply would not work, and those criticisms have turned out to be absolutely valid. It is therefore important that the Minister does not charge ahead with his own ideas. He should share them with the House and the industry, which would then be better served.
My final question considers a group of people who have not been touched upon in the debate—those ordinary members of crews of fishing vessels that are decommissioned. The owners of those vessels get

reasonably large sums of money from decommissioning, but those who have worked on those vessels for 10 or 20 years end up with nothing and just become unemployed.
When we consider the decommissioning package, we should also think about those ordinary crew members. We should think of measures to compensate those who are taken out of the industry through no fault of their own but simply because of its overall needs. I should be grateful if the Minister turned his mind to what can be done to help those ordinary crew members, who end up with nothing.

Sir Richard Body: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his robust speech, which will be applauded by my constituents. I do not see, however, how anyone of us can have any enthusiasm for the statutory instrument, because it will not achieve the objective we all desire.
We could double the size of the fishing fleet going out to sea, and there would be no danger to our fishing stocks if our fishermen were able to go back to the fishing methods of an earlier generation. Equally, we could more than halve our existing fishing fleet and the fleets of other Community countries, and our fishing stocks would be so depleted that we would cease to have a fishing industry of any consequence if we all went along with high-tech industrial fishing methods.
Industrial fishing methods are being rapidly adopted not just in Community waters but around the world, and they have become a curse on conservation. I repeat that it is a worldwide problem, but I wish that this country would take the lead, as it is uniquely qualified to do, not just in Europe but internationally, to alert the fishing industries to the fact that, unless we tackle industrial fishing methods and the evils it is bringing, we will have a grave ecological problem in our seas in quite a short time.
The problem of quota hopping has been mentioned forcibly by several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who said that he had been arguing against it for 15 years. Surely the problem goes back to 1970, and the genesis of the common fisheries policy.
On the eve of our application to join the European Community, the Council of Ministers passed the regulation that enshrined the principle of equal access. It was therefore immaterial what country one came from, because one had equal access to all the waters. That principle was reaffirmed in 1976. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his place, because I intended to remind him that he was in the House then and supported his Government, which he did loyally in those days, on that issue. Given his absence, I had better say no more about it.
We should remember that the problem goes back a long time. We conceded the principle when we joined the Community in 1973. If we are to make any progress on quota hopping, that regulation of 1976 must be expunged. I hope that the Minister will confirm that; that he will keep it in mind; and that he will do his utmost to achieve that objective. If he fails to do so, perhaps even he will consider the necessity for not just a root-and-branch reform of the common fisheries policy but something even more radical.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I do not wish to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), because he misunderstands the issue to the extent that the common fisheries policy is built on the concept of relative stability. It is the contradiction between quota hopping and relative stability that must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
This is an item for the intergovernmental conference, so we must know what exactly the Government propose to do. Some suggestions have been made, but no specific attempts have been made to identify the necessary approach. The Government will have my full support and that of my hon. Friends to achieve that end. The IGC has been going on for some weeks. I know that it is a lengthy process and that there is still time to discuss the issue. I understand that nothing will be decided in the discussions on Monday. I am not asking the Minister to show his negotiating hand, but he needs to reassure the industry that he is taking the issue seriously. He needs to put some flesh on the bones.
I support the statutory instrument for the reasons that everyone has explained. The relaxation of the eligibility criteria is welcome, and the prawner question, which was vexed and hard fought last year, has been dealt with. The industry is a lot happier. We would obviously be a lot happier if more decommissioning schemes were introduced, backed up with proper funding, for which we have argued for many years, at least since the late 1980s. I hope that the Government will continue to do what they can to increase the access to and eligibility for decommissioning schemes in the future.
I should like to refer to the Minister's comments on the multi-annual guidance programme. I was encouraged by the tone that he adopted on some issues. The Government are entitled to be robust about the relative position of the United Kingdom and the Commission on the MAGP. However, there is still much confusion about the exact targets and shortfall, about whether the deficit will be carried over and, if it is to be carried over, the consequences that that will have for MAGP3 and up to 2002.
I hope that, if the Minister has time, he will consider that matter. I was encouraged that he took such a robust attitude to the Lassen report and the Commission's announcement on that. A 40 per cent. reduction, even if it is over five or six years, is unacceptable, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed great anger about that. I add my weight to the frustration expressed by other hon. Members. We support the Government's opposition, and I hope that that will be continued robustly.
The two specific objections to Lassen have both been mentioned, but I mention them in passing. It is unacceptable to proceed with these issues without taking account of the effect of industrial fishing and the fact that this is a biologist's report; ridiculously, there is no socio-economic analysis and perspective. The Commission must understand that, if fishermen are not committed to the schemes, mechanisms and processes, if they do not accept their value in their innermost hearts, they will not work. We must work with the grain of the industry.
Sadly, there is no basis for equating a 40 per cent. reduction in catch with a 40 per cent. reduction in capacity.
I know that the Minister received no notice of the announcement by the Commissioner, but can we get together to try to create better consultation procedures for setting total allowable catch limits? This scheme has been better than most, but it needs to be improved more in future.
The issue of quota hopping is bound up with the concept of relative stability, and we shall support efforts to change the treaty to get the common fisheries policy and quota hopping better sorted out, but it is an IGC matter and the Government need to say more about what they will do about that.
I sound a note of warning about the potential difficulty of not agreeing to consider anything to do with the Lassen report until quota hoppers are dealt with; some people would be encouraged by that, because they have a vested interest in procrastinating on both those issues. The Government must be careful how they play that tactically. A treaty change on quota hopping is necessary, but even a treaty change—the Minister might confirm this—were it to be successful, and were the Government to win that argument, could be, as far as I can read from a legal point of view, only a prospective suggestion. What can we do about those who are already in the system, and why cannot the Government use some of the money available from the CFP in connection with third-country waters, to buy people out of quota hopping? That appears a simple, straightforward way in which to proceed.
I am very worried about the continuing aging process, which has dramatically increased in the past 10 years. Ridiculously, the average age of our vessels is now 25 years. The Government are putting their head in the sand and are not making use of some of the socio-economic funds that are available through the CFP, for scrap and build and for some pension provision for those who leave the system. There is much to be done. If the Government are robust in dealing with Lassen and quota hopping, they will receive my support and that of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Michael Brown: This is one of those debates that happens all too rarely in the House, in which there is a virtual unanimity of view across the House from all parties, whatever view we have taken individually about our membership of the European Community in the past. Speeches such as those by my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) show the outrage that exists throughout the House. The passion that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives brought to bear in his speech shows that the patience of fishermen throughout the United Kingdom is very thin.

Mr. Harris: It has gone.

Mr. Brown: Indeed, it has gone.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I had the privilege of welcoming the Fisheries Minister to Great Grimsby a few weeks ago. There, despite the devastation that we have witnessed in the fishing industry in the past two decades, there was a buoyancy with the opening of the new fish market—yet suddenly Commissioner Bonino knocks that confidence. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has responded so robustly, and I hope that he will pass on the


message from the House, from all the political parties, that there is outrage about the manner and tone in which she made those announcements.
I fear that, if we fail to sort out this issue, fishermen's patience with the common fisheries policy, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said, has gone, will never return. Our patience on both sides of the House with the common fisheries policy will then go, the public's confidence in the common fisheries policy will go—if it has not gone already—and there will be a massive upwelling of public feeling, as we look at beef and as we look at fish, which will cause the public to ask the purpose of our membership of the European Community.
In the referendum in 1975, I voted against our entry into the European Community. In the past two decades, however, I bought the view that the issue was resolved once and for all—that that was it, we had had our say, the people of Britain had had their say and it was time to acknowledge that, for better or for worse, we were in the European Community and had to make the best of its institutions.
I have gone along with that view pretty well for the past 20 years. In 1986, I did vote against the Single European Act, but I bought the general view that, for better or for worse, we have been in the European Community and we must make those institutions work with regard to fish, the common agricultural policy and so on.
I do not want the House ever to have to come to consider our withdrawal from the European Community, but it will, I suspect, be an issue such as fish that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back with regard to the patience of the people out there and of the fishermen out there.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and I constantly attend meetings with the shadow Fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). The fishermen we meet ask us what the benefit is of being in the common fisheries policy. We say to them that, unfortunately, for better or for worse, that is the structure under which we must operate at present; that is where the negotiations must take place. The fishermen's response shows that they are starting to wonder what is in the common fisheries policy for them. The concept may have been a good idea, but currently it impinges very unfairly on our British fishermen.
I am delighted with the robust view that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Government have taken. I am sure that they are not countenancing failure, but if they are unable to deliver what I know that they will negotiate for, our continued membership of the European Community will be called into question. I therefore wish my hon. Friend every success, because much more hangs on a successful outcome of the negotiations than our ability to deal with this problem. I believe that, as we reach the end of this century, whatever Government are in power, the issue of fish will determine the national attitude to whether our continued membership of the European Community is a good thing.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I regret that I have not tabled an amendment, because it would be nice to have a longer debate, as we should now ask questions, and call in question the basis of the decommissioning

policy. I am aware that Labour Members supported it for a long time before the Government did anything, but that delay has created a whole new ball game. It is a ball game in which the British industry is now being asked to decommission on what will be a massive scale if we cut 19 per cent. over the effort targets by the end of this year, then 40 per cent. by 2002, effectively to make room for Spanish vessels in our waters, to make more space for large, modernised, efficient European fleets, and to make more room for quota hoppers on our register.
The other European countries have reached their multi-annual guidance programme targets by flagging their vessels under the British flag. Under the MAGP targets up to the end of 1991, Spain had to reduce its effort by 2.2 per cent. It registered 3 per cent. of its fleet as British to catch our fish. The Dutch had to reduce their effort by 16 per cent., so they put 6 per cent. of the fleet under the British flag. We now carry the burden and have to reduce our effort because of that reflagging. Jim Porteous of the south-west fisheries producers organisation has calculated that the flag of convenience vessels are now catching £82 million-worth of our fish in our waters and landing it in European ports. That is why we now face this huge reduction of effort and it is one of the reasons why we should call into question the decommissioning process.
There are other reasons for calling that process into question. I have seen the Grimsby fleet drastically reduced. It is heart-rending, because it is one of the most conservation-conscious and efficient fleets in the country. It uses a larger mesh size than most other fleets and the vessels are older. They are seine netters, which is not an efficient method of fishing. It is not the vacuum cleaner method, scooping up everything. It is conservation-effective. We need more inefficient fishing, so that the fishermen catch larger fish, leaving the smaller fish to be caught later. We are taking the most conservation-effective vessels out through the decommissioning scheme, and that is wrong.
Another reason why we should question the decommissioning scheme was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). The decommissioning proposals do nothing for the share fishermen. They are losing their jobs as the vessel is being laid up, but nothing is being done for them. I asked the Minister why the Government did not accept the European proposal—I am not advocating accepting European proposals en masse—to part-fund an early retirement scheme and a compensation scheme for fishermen on decommissioned boats. The Government said that they preferred that to be taken care of by national social security measures.
However, because we are talking about share fishermen who work on a self-employed basis, there is nothing for them when their vessel is decommissioned. They are losing their livelihood, but there is no redundancy pay and no help or support for them. If we are to have effective decommissioning, it is essential that something should be done for the fishermen—the poor bloody infantry of the industry. It is time that something was done.
We are asked to make cuts in our effort to the end of this year, as a prelude to what the Commissioner told us might be a cut of 40 per cent. in the British effort. That is ludicrous and totally unacceptable. I am delighted that the Minister is committed to working against it. I want to tell him that the only way in which it can be resisted is


by calling into question the basis of equal access to a common resource on which the common fisheries policy rests. If we accept that principle, it follows as night follows day that there will be cuts pan passu across the board.
It is ludicrous that we who bring the most fish into the so-called Common Market pool—about 75 per cent. of the stock—should be asked to take the biggest cuts in our fishing effort. We are being asked to make a cut of over half. The only way to resist it is to say that the cuts should be in inverse ratio to the contribution made to the stocks. If we contribute the most stocks, we should take the lowest cuts. Spain, which has a massive fleet and no fishing waters, should take the biggest cuts. That is the only logical and acceptable way to do it.
We are reaching the end of the line. The Government have come to us bleating about the benefits of the CFP, but have done nothing for the industry except watch it be restructured by liquidation. They must stop the quota hoppers, which means an assault on that principle. They must get greater powers for the territorial states, so that we can protect our stocks and not see them stolen by other vessels. They must end the equal access. That is the only way to defend British fishing and to see some improvement. I offer the Government the principles contained in my Bill—the Fishery Limits (Amendment) Bill—which does all those things. I hope that they will look at it.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I agree almost entirely with what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I go along with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I agree particularly with the feeling of resentment about the stocks caught by the quota hoppers. That must be addressed.
I want to make one specific point that has not been covered in the debate so far. Rather unusually, my point involves the banking system in Scotland. The banks play a major part in the fishing industry because they lend finance to the fishermen so that they can obtain the boats that they take to sea. We recognise that the fleets are aging and that in the future there will be a need for the banks to provide support if we are to increase the potential of our vessels and improve safety factors, with fishermen going to sea in modern vessels.
The problem is the way in which the decommissioning scheme will be implemented. Fishermen will have to have their documents handed in and the vessels scrapped by the end of October. Thereafter, there is a 30-day gap to the time when cheques will be handed over. I am advised that at that time, the banks lose security on that element of cash. That is not acceptable to them. It would add costs to the industry in the future if it were to be permitted and if people defaulted on their bank loans.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am sorry that that technicality has arisen so late, but I shall ask my officials to discuss it with the banks concerned as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend. That is the assurance I sought, and I shall now sit down.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the co-operation that is allowing all hon. Members with fishing interests to participate in the debate. Every fishing debate is controversial, and an hour and a half is not sufficient time for such a debate.
I want to make three points. We all agree that the common fisheries policy is a busted flush and should be changed fundamentally. There are three areas that destabilise the CFP. The first is the flag of convenience vessels, and that point has been mentioned many times. I remember the Merchant Shipping Bill back in 1988, when the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and I proposed amendments to toughen the conditions placed on flag of convenience vessels. At that time, despite the fact that that legislation was their fourth attempt to deal with the issue, the Government told us that everything was in order and that they had the matter in hand. They told us that our amendments were no good. Whether the amendments were good or bad, they could not have been any worse than the Government's attempts in that Bill.
The issue is now to go before the intergovernmental conference. There is a point that I want the Minister to think about. As I understand the policy of non-co-operation, everything is to be vetoed regardless of whether it is good or bad. Even if treaty changes on flags of convenience vessels were achievable, am I correct in believing that they would be vetoed by the United Kingdom? The Minister seems to be shaking his head, but as I understand the policy, everything is to be vetoed regardless of whether the United Kingdom supports it. The Minister should address that.
The second issue that destabilised the CFP was Spanish access to western waters six years before it was provided for in Spain's treaty of accession. This morning, The Times said:
Spain's unexpected decision to vote in favour of lifting the embargo on British bovine by-products may have been taken in the hope of a future quid pro quo with Britain on fishing rights.
We have been here before. There have been Council meetings at which Spain suddenly decided to vote for the United Kingdom's position on qualified majority voting. We then found out that the fishing industry had been sold down the river as part of that bargain. Would the Minister care to deny the report in The Times this morning that Spain's decision to side with the United Kingdom might have something to do with its interest in fishing matters?

Mr. Baldry: I have absolutely no idea where that story came from, and it bears no relation to the truth. Spain changed its view because it saw our eradication document, and it was able to support us on that basis.

Mr. Salmond: I look forward to the Minister's letter to The Times, in which he will doubtless give us the details of the dirty deal that was done with Spain three years ago, which gave it accelerated access. The Minister shakes his head, but I have heard the same point made by Conservative Members.
The third factor that has destabilised the common fisheries policy is the quota allocation. The Minister, rightly, in his short term of office has been directed to technical conservation, square-mesh panels and industrial fishing as alternative methods of conservation. We all accept that quota allocation is fine at times of abundant


fishery, but when the fishery becomes tight, the quota allocation becomes perverse as a conservation policy. Many Opposition Members have put the arguments for square-mesh panels and industrial fishing to many of the Minister's predecessors for many years, but we have yet to see effective action pursued and taken.
I know that the Minister has been engaged in the dramatic consultation process in the past few months. I wish him well, but I hope that his declarations on and interest in questions of technical conservation are carried through into serious argument in the Council of Ministers.
I, too, welcome the Minister's tough talk on fishing this evening, but I have seen his predecessors come and go. They all, including the UK Fisheries Minister—as the Minister described himself—said that they would act tough and change their ways on the common fisheries policy. Yet they all went to the Council of Ministers and did not talk tough there. If they did, that did not have any effect because they acted like lambs.
The consistent feature of United Kingdom fishing policy has been to subordinate fishing to other interests in the European Union. That is why Spain, which is in the CFP, secured a good deal and Norway, from outside the CFP, secured a good deal. Fishing is an absolute priority of policy for both countries. Only when a Minister can come to the Dispatch Box and promise the House that fishing will be an absolute priority will he have any chance of success in European negotiations.

Mr. William Ross: The statutory instrument covers the period up to the end of this year, but the decommissioning will not stop there and further proposals are in the pipeline. The debate has revolved not around the instrument but around those further proposals.
The social and economic structure of the areas affected by fleet reductions has been well explored in the past and needs no repetition, other than to say that if the Irish sea fleet had to cut its catch by 40 per cent., the present onshore infrastructure simply could not be sustained, because the throughput of fish would be so low as to make the whole operation uneconomic. I am sure that that also applies elsewhere.
The fishermen in Northern Ireland are astonished by the latest proposals, because they know that some species are abundant in the fishery at present, including haddock, herring and prawns. That was apparently also the view of the scientists until the turn of the year, but those early opinions seem to have been set aside despite the fact that the prawn fishery was increased by some 3,000 tonnes.
It now seems that a massive cut is being demanded because the Community has taken a global view of all EC fisheries and has made cuts on that basis instead of considering individual species or fishing areas. That is not acceptable to the fishing industry, those who represent it in the House or the country at large. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that it was not acceptable to the Government. I hope that the Government will reject the cuts that have been demanded and opt for a policy tailored to each area and species.
It is clear that the UK has suffered disproportionately from the changes made over the years, and there has been a huge reduction in the fleet in Northern Ireland already. We shall now be asked to give still more. It is time for a

radical change of policy, because the Northern Ireland fleet and those elsewhere in the United Kingdom have shrunk far enough.
Something must be done about quota hopping. Much has been said about quota hopping, but something must also be done about the privileged position created for the Irish Republic by the Hague preference system, which has not been mentioned so far. I shall not go into details, but the facts will be well known to fishermen and all those who represent fishing constituencies. Those problems need immediate resolution and even more immediate is the need to fulfil the Government's pledge that the Irish sea Hague preference losses would be made good by international quota swaps.
In the longer term, we need to clarify whether the Government accept the draft report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on fisheries, issued in early May, which discussed decommissioning and reducing activity and catchability. In short, the question the document raises is whether the EC should have a small fishing fleet with a high catch capacity per vessel and utilise it fully—apparently that would be technically easy, because many vessels are tied up—or whether it should be satisfied with many more but less efficient vessels that would keep more people at work at sea and also more small fishing ports open. That needs careful consideration, because the smaller one-rig boats that fish for prawns ensure a steady year-round supply of prawns and steady employment. The larger, more efficient boats provide more seasonal supply and employment.
The report states:
Measures to reduce activity and catchability will improve the willingness of fishermen to leave the industry".
If applied, that would lead to a policy that squeezed the individual fisherman financially to the point at which he was not able to catch sufficient fish to keep his operation viable and would therefore be forced to take a small sum in compensation and leave the industry. Is that unacceptable policy precisely the result that the demand for a further 40 per cent. cut is intended to achieve?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I am grateful to hon. Members for their wide-ranging contributions to what has once again, and rightly, turned out to be an impassioned debate. The fishing industry is a vital part of our national life and is at the heart of the constituencies of many hon. Members who have spoken today. I am proud to include myself among them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said, and whatever the difference in views, I believe that the whole House yearns to see a viable and profitable UK fishing industry that husbands the natural resources surrounding these islands and harvests those natural resources on a sustainable basis. The fish stocks on which our fishing industry relies are heavily over-exploited. Failure to tackle overfishing exposes the fishing industry to an increasing risk that those stocks will simply disappear, and that must never be allowed to happen.
On the subject of the multi-annual guidance programme, the House has shown its real concern about the scale of the possible capacity reductions that the Commission is now seeking to achieve by 2002. I shall


repeat the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and make it clear to all hon. Members that there is no prospect of our decommissioning a third of the UK trawler fleet over the next three years, as Mrs. Bonino has suggested, but there is still a need for us to help remove from the fleet those vessels that are becoming increasingly unviable. Only in that way can we safeguard the future of the remaining fleet, place it on a more viable footing and reduce the incentive to overfish. That is why the Government propose to spend a further £13 million under the scheme before the House.
There is no doubt that we need to reduce fishing effort for the future of the industry. The question is not whether, but how and to what extent different parts of the European Community fishing fleets should reduce their fishing activity. Of course, as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, we do not need to proceed by decommissioning alone. The fleet can be reduced in other ways.
For example, although there is not much agreement in the industry, I know that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is increasingly willing to contemplate restrictions on time at sea. I commend that thinking and I look forward to the UK industry acting responsibly and making known its detailed considerations of the Commission's proposals as we discuss them in the months ahead. I stress again that, in their present form, the proposals are unacceptable to the industry and to the Government.
Many hon. Members mentioned quota hopping, especially my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). Of course, there is no point in spending UK taxpayers' money to decommission fishing vessels if other member states can continue to export their own surplus capacity on to our fishing register. It is vital that action is taken to close that loophole, which is exploited by quota hoppers. It would be intolerable if we were to scrap UK vessels, for them simply to be replaced by flag boats from other member states fishing against UK quotas. Although we took action to try to remedy that problem in 1989, our action was struck down by the European Court—the same European Court that many Opposition Front Benchers would sell their souls to serve.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear the Government's resolve to tackle the quota hopping problem at the intergovernmental conference. He made that point forcefully in his useful meeting with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Aberdeen last month. We envisage that our proposals will take the form of a protocol to the treaty, which recognises that national quotas allocated under the common fisheries policy are to be used for the benefit of national fishing communities. The protocol will be designed to allow individual member states to adopt measures to ensure that there are real economic links between their fishing communities and the vessels that fish their quotas.
As my hon Friend the Minister of State said, the European Commission cannot be surprised that the UK fishing industry and the Government are unwilling to contemplate any further programmes of reductions in the UK fleet as long as the problem of quota hoppers remains to be solved.
Under the common fisheries policy, UK quotas are for the benefit of UK fishing communities, not for the benefit of fishermen from other member states. Fishing makes a vital contribution to the wealth of fishery-dependent areas, which are often in remote parts of our country where the scope for diversification is limited. It is our job to ensure that that contribution is properly safeguarded and secured.
Some hon. Members asked about technical conservation and progress. I acknowledge the positive role that is played by our fishing industry and the fisheries conservation group. They have agreed a package of measures which, if adopted, should help to reduce discards and improve the state of some of the stocks on which our fishermen depend. We have passed details to the Commission and will press it to present its proposals as quickly as possible. Of course, we shall update the House on that.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) asked a series of questions relating to his constituency. I shall write to him with detailed replies.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It is obvious that the Minister is running out of material with which to respond to the debate. I have a basic question. There have been consistent references to decommissioning and to how we can reach the multi-annual guidance programme. Can the Minister state the exact UK tonnage, because three different figures have been published in the past month?

Mr. Robertson: Obviously, there is confusion about that, and so that there is no ambiguity, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will write to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members.
Some hon. Members mentioned a decommissioning scheme specifically for quota hoppers. There are 150 quota hoppers in the UK fleet, representing one fifth of the tonnage of our offshore fleet.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I should like to intervene before the Minister moves too far from his response to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who made a valid point about the early retirement scheme and the Government's opposition to it. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will look again at introducing the scheme, in view of the considerable hardship faced by some fishermen?

Mr. Robertson: As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, there is a variety of other schemes, such as FIFG and PESCA. As she presses me to have a second look at the matter, I am happy to assure her that I shall do so.

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
Clearly, if we were able to decommission the 150 quota hoppers, it would go a long way towards meeting any targets for capacity reductions. Of course, there is nothing to prevent quota hopper owners from applying for decommissioning grants under the scheme before the House. Some quota hoppers were decommissioned under previous schemes. A special scheme targeting them would


be quite different, and I am not sure that fishermen would take kindly to our spending large sums of public money to buy them out.
Even if it were possible to devise such a scheme, some difficult issues would need to be resolved. Should arrangements be voluntary or compulsory, and what steps should be taken to prevent the owners of decommissioned vessels buying back into the UK fleet? How could we be sure that the quota that was released by the decommissioning of such vessels benefited UK vessels and interests? Those and other matters would have to be carefully considered.

Mr. Salmond: If I were the Minister, I would not burn my bridges about buying out quota hoppers. I would introduce some flexibility. The Minister said that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation supported days at sea measures. Will he make it clear that they would not be an addition but in exchange for a relaxation of the quota regime?

Mr. Robertson: Of course they are not. I am not ruling out the idea of buying out quota hoppers—far from it—but our fishermen would want satisfactory answers to a series of technical and important questions before we went down that road. I am trying to flag up some of the questions and issues that would have to be discussed with the industry and sorted out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that. Although we have no plans for a scheme at present, I am not willing to rule it out. Indeed, I am willing to look at it with our industry.
The measure will, I hope, make a valuable contribution to improving the operation of the UK fleet. As the Minister of State said, there have been a number of changes in the criteria compared with the 1995 scheme, and they are all designed to make it more effective. I am glad that the House has been able to welcome the widening of the scheme, which will allow more vessel owners to apply.
We have had a full and useful debate. The proposed scheme will make a modest but valuable contribution towards restructuring the UK fishing fleet and safeguarding its future and that of the fish stocks on which it depends. I have no hesitation in commending the scheme to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1242), dated 7th May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Parliamentary Proceedings (Welsh)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, whilst English is and should remain the language of this House, the use of Welsh be permitted in parliamentary proceedings held in Wales, subject to the conditions set out in the Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 387).
We have emptied the Chamber of Scotsmen and filled it with Welshmen.
I shall begin by explaining why, to his great regret, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is unable to be present. As my right hon. Friend is not here, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) will reply to the debate. I know that that will be understood by Welsh Members, but I thought that I should put it on the record because the same problem has led to the leading party spokesmen for other parties in Wales being unable to be here.
They have a good reason. The Secretary of State and the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) are tonight taking part in a long-arranged public debate in Wales, probably in English, on constitutional issues affecting Wales. It is clearly an important occasion and they all felt that they should be present. We all understand that, and I am sorry that we were not able to arrange parliamentary business in a more convenient way for them. I can testify from my conversations with the Secretary of State for Wales that he has asked me to make clear his strong personal support for the proposal.
The House will recall that, on 11 March, we agreed seven new Standing Orders enabling the Welsh Grand Committee to play an enhanced role in the parliamentary consideration of Welsh affairs by dealing with a wider range of business and holding meetings in Wales. During consultation on the draft Standing Orders and in the debate, representations were made that the use of the Welsh language should be allowed in the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee when it met in Wales.
I made it clear to the House in, I hope, a characteristically conciliatory way during the earlier debate that the Government did not think that those representations could be dismissed. After all, we are the Administration who carried through the Welsh Language Act 1993, which established the principle that, in the conduct of public business in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated equally.
As I said in our earlier debate on the matter, it was clear that a decision to allow the use of Welsh in parliamentary proceedings would be a major change in practice on which the House ought to take a view when the issues of principle and practicality had been thoroughly investigated. Accordingly, I invited the Procedure Committee whose distinguished Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is in his place and who was slightly taken by surprise when he read the report of our earlier debate, to consider the matter and to report to the House as soon as possible.
My right hon. Friend and his colleagues kindly accepted that unexpected and unannounced remit and have discharged it with admirable speed although they


were engaged in several other inquiries at the same time. It is appropriate to express on behalf of the House, and not only Welsh Members, our gratitude to my right hon. Friend and the members of the Committee for that. I am moving the motion to give the House an opportunity to decide on the Committee's recommendations.
First, English is the language in which the proceedings of this House are conducted, as it is the only language that all hon. Members are assumed to understand. The Procedure Committee rested firmly on that principle for proceedings here, and recommended that the House should affirm that principle in a resolution.
In that connection, I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for his courtesy in giving me notice of some points that he wanted me to cover on the possible uses of languages other than English. This may be an appropriate time for me to pick them up. He asked about the appropriateness or, indeed, orderliness of using Latin and Greek and Chaucerian English. The advice that I have on that is that it would be for the Speaker—or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to decide whether to allow an hon. Member to use a quotation in Latin, Greek or Chaucerian English during a speech in the House without providing a translation.
I gather that, unfortunately, no hon. Members of the present House—certainly not me—heard Lord Palmerston get himself out of a tight corner in the "Don Pacifico" debate in 1850, which I remember learning about in my boyhood, with a peroration that included the phrase:
Civis Britannicus sum",
which I hasten to translate, to be sure that I am in order, as:
I am a British citizen".
I do not think that anyone would take exception to the use of Latin in that case, but as a general rule we might do well to follow the practice of Sir Winston Churchill, who on one occasion, when he had made a telling point in a speech with a Latin quotation, followed it up instantly with a translation into English. I suspect, however, that his purpose was not to keep in order but rather to make a different point, because in introducing the English version he said that it was "for the benefit of any Etonians who may be present".
I move rapidly from Latin, Greek and Chaucerian English to the second question raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, who noticed, no doubt, that I mentioned during the debate in March that Norman French was still used in the other place when Royal Assent is signified to Acts of Parliament by Commission. The formula used—I have heard it many times—is "La Reyne le veult".
Norman French is also used by the Clerks, I am told—I did not know this before—in the endorsements that are written on Bills as they pass from one House to the other. I see the Clerk nodding—[Interruption.] Is he not nodding? Perhaps he is not allowed to nod, but I am sure that I saw him nodding first. Norman French, although spoken in that one instance in the other place, is never spoken in the House. I hope that that is sufficient guidance for what has been the practice.
The last point that the hon. Gentleman raised with me can best be illustrated by referring to the speech that was made to a joint gathering of both Houses of Parliament

by President Chirac recently, which many hon. Members present will have heard, and which was, of course, delivered in French. The point is that it is quite usual for visiting Heads of State and Heads of Government to deliver such addresses in their own language, but these are ceremonial occasions that do not form part of the proceedings of the House, so the normal rules do not apply. I hope that that is sufficient comment on the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
I return to the main purpose of the motion, which asks us to reaffirm that English is the language used for the proceedings of the House. The Procedure Committee was none the less satisfied that the Welsh language enjoys a special status in Wales, already recognised in law through the Welsh Language Act 1993, which provides a sound basis for agreeing a narrow derogation from the general rule concerning English to allow the use of Welsh in parliamentary proceedings in Wales. The motion gives effect to that recommendation.
Finally, the motion approves the conditions for the use of Welsh, which the Procedure Committee has recommended. The principal condition is that facilities for simultaneous interpretation from Welsh into English should be provided for the benefit of non-Welsh speakers. The Committee's advice is that such facilities can be hired at relatively modest cost; indeed, a number of the venues that might be used for meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee are already appropriately equipped, as one would expect, particularly since the passage of the Welsh Language Act.
The Committee also made a number of practical recommendations, which the motion invites the House to endorse: that hon. Members proposing to speak in Welsh should give notice to the Chairman; that hon. Members should not switch from one language to the other in the course of a speech; and that direct communications between the Chairman and an hon. Member, such as points of order, and communications with members of staff, should be in English. As the report makes clear, all those recommendations are made for practical reasons.
The motion would apply not only to the Welsh Grand Committee, but to any meetings of the Welsh Affairs Committee and, indeed, other Select Committees that may meet in Wales. The Procedure Committee has recommended a set of guidelines—again of a practical character—that should govern the hearing of oral evidence in the Welsh language.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that some of us have been listening to him with great interest. When the proceedings are published, which will be the definitive text—the English or the Welsh?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will comment. The report recommends that, where somebody has given notice that they wish to speak in Welsh, they will be required to provide an English translation, which will then be the official record. I think that that is the suggestion. Does my right hon. Friend wish to intervene at this point?

Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps I can come to the aid of the House. All parliamentary papers have always


been published in English, and the publication of all parliamentary and Committee papers will continue to be in English.

Mr. Newton: I hope that my right hon. Friend's intervention is helpful to the hon. Gentleman. It was certainly helpful to me. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
If the House approves the motion, the way will be clear for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to introduce proposals for a programme of meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee at suitable locations in Wales. In view of the undoubted success of the reforms of the Scottish Grand Committee that the Government have introduced, I am sure that all Welsh Members will be looking forward eagerly to these developments.

Mr. John Morris: Can we ensure that there is no misconception? My understanding from the Procedure Committee's recommendations is that, if an hon. Member wishes to speak Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales, he is not obliged to provide a translation, as a translation will automatically be provided and transmitted by the translators and the equipment. That should be clearly understood here and now.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I can clear up the misinterpretation that I gave by accident just now. When re-reading material on this issue shortly before I came into the Chamber, the last thing that I read was the evidence given by the Editor of Hansard, who I think made the suggestion to which I referred. I apologise to the House for confusing that evidence, which was fairly fresh in my mind, with the report's recommendations, which have been clearly explained by my right hon. Friend and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that that helps to remove the misunderstanding to which I inadvertently contributed.
In conclusion, I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in his endorsement of the Procedure Committee's recommendations. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I add to the apologies that were given by the Leader of the House for the absence of the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and the other two party leaders from Wales, who are in Cardiff tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is shadow Leader of the House, has asked me to reply, which would not usually occur, but she is otherwise engaged. She has given notice of her absence to the Leader of the House.
The Opposition welcome the Procedure Committee's recommendations. We also welcome the speed with which it carried out its work, its professionalism and that of the witnesses and those who offered written evidence, the Clerks and others, so that it was able to reach the recommendations that we are debating.
I cavil at two of the Committee's recommendations, but just for the purposes of debate and so that the House may give those matters some thought. It occurs to me that the proposed formal declaration that English is the language of the House of Commons, other than for the Welsh

Grand Committee when sitting in Wales, is much against the traditions of the House. Such a declaration is almost a first step along the road to a written constitution.
It reminds anyone with an interest in Welsh history of the 1536 Act of Union, which applied to Wales a rule that never applied in England—that anyone from Wales who wanted to take part in public business, such as the law or Parliament, must do so in the English language. A person would have been at liberty to use another language in England, but not in Wales, because fear of the Welsh language prompted a formal declaration. The House should consider whether it would be better to do without a formal declaration, as such is against the traditions of the House—which permits things to be done by evolution and the rules of pragmatism.
As to the use of Norman French in limited circumstances, the Leader of the House did not address what would happen if the House were to make a formal declaration that no language other than English could be used in our proceedings. Would Norman French be disallowed? We do not necessarily want to lose those odd bits of Norman French that are used here and there in our formal proceedings, so it might be better to avoid a formal declaration—or at least give serious thought to the implications before making one.

Mr. Newton: There may be some small misunderstanding. The only use of Norman French in the proceedings of Parliament that is formally recorded is in the other place, so it cannot be affected by a resolution made in this House. However, the Clerks also make use of Norman French in passing Bills between the two Houses.

Mr. Morgan: That calls into question whether the Clerks would be permitted, if a formal declaration were made, to use Norman French for their purposes.
My other concern is whether a speech made partly in Welsh and partly in English would be debarred. Hansard has said that that should not be allowed, and although I understand the reasons, I am not certain that it is wise to make such a definite rule. I appreciate that Hansard wants maximum notice, which is absolutely fair, so that it can check that an interpreter is available, but the general principle followed in respect of the proceedings of the House—I speak from personal experience—should take account of the relevance of the language to the topic, not the convenience of the service provided by Hansard.
I am not saying that I am dismissing the practical concerns of Hansard. Nevertheless, if an hon. Member were to be speaking on the subject of agriculture and wanted to move on from the common agricultural policy wheat subsidy to the BSE crisis in the beef herds of Wales, since most beef farmers in Wales happen to be Welsh-speaking, the hon. Member might want to change at that point to the use of Welsh. If a Front Bencher were speaking on a range of education matters, he might say in the last five minutes, "I want to conclude on the position of Welsh medium schools in Wales." Interested outsiders would be happier hearing about that in Welsh.
It is the tradition of the House first to try something and, if it causes a problem, to reach agreement with the services provided to the House. If something proves impracticable, it is banned because it has been proved not to work. I understand that principle is known as solvitur ambulando—an ancient phrase that I had never heard until


a couple of hours ago, when I read that it was used by Lord Howe of Aberavon when he gave evidence to the Public Service Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I would be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell us the meaning of that phrase.

Mr. Morgan: Having explained who said it and where, I was about to say that it means, "It will solve itself at a walking pace." I am glad to have acted in an educational capacity for the benefit of the Deputy Speaker, as Lord Howe did for me when I read that reference in the Library's helpful briefing for tonight's debate.
I have practical experience of speaking in both English and Welsh at Labour party conferences in Wales.

Mr. Win Griffiths: At the same time?

Mr. Morgan: No—consecutively, not concurrently. That did not seem to cause problems for the audience, but there was no question of interpretation. I have also spoken in Welsh in at least one national Labour party conference, and I recall that the present Member of the European Parliament for Mid and West Wales—my former constituent Miss Eluned Morgan, who is no relation—made part of her speech to the Brighton conference in Welsh and the rest in English. She could not have given her speech entirely in Welsh, but it did not seem unreasonable for her to speak in Welsh for three minutes.
The practicalities of using Welsh in a political context do not seem to cause problems, and if doing so makes sense, Hansard should fit the occasion rather than hon. Members having to fit Hansard—although I do not wish to sound as though Hansard writers can perform tricks, stand on their heads and write double Dutch at the same time. I know that there are limits to what they can do, but Hansard should serve our practical needs. If it makes sense for hon. Members to speak Welsh because of the nature of the topic, that preference should be given more attention. The Procedure Committee may simply have decided, "Okay, if that's what Hansard says are the practical modalities of allowing Welsh to be spoken in the Welsh Grand Committee, we must do exactly what Hansard wants in every respect." Which is what the Committee has done.

Mr. Nick Ainger: As someone who served on a council that was bilingual until its abolition earlier this year, I appreciate—as a monoglot Yorkshireman—the concerns that Hansard may have. There is no need for concern because speeches made in Welsh will be interpreted. If the Hansard writers cannot understand a speech and do their job, how will monoglot members of the Welsh Grand Committee understand what is being said? There is some criticism implied of the interpretation facilities. I can assure Hansard as a monoglot Yorkshireman—my hon. Friend has the benefit of being

bilingual—that interpretation facilities throughout Wales are excellent. Hansard will be able to do its job, as will monoglot members of the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions in any language should be short and precise.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. If Dyfed county council could interpret my hon. Friend's "Ee bah gum" into Welsh, I am sure that Hansard can do just as well with Welsh interpreted into English for the purposes of the record.
Incidentally, I was interested to hear the interventions of Northern Ireland Members, and I was glad to see in his place earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), because their presence is relevant.
It was as late as 1906 before a Speaker ruled that English was to be the main language of the House of Commons, and only because of a challenge by an Irish nationalist Member of Parliament from west Kerry who attempted to make a speech in the Chamber in Irish Gaelic. The Speaker at the time made the point—as did the Leader of the House in his intervention—that the proceedings of the House have been conducted entirely in English for the past 600 years. He went one stage further and said that the House's proceedings had always been in English, which is not true. The House started out as a trilingual Parliament, with proceedings in English, French and Latin. In a fluid, pragmatic, I hesitate to say solvitur ambulando way, the English language gradually took over from Latin and French, probably by about 1450.
Naturally—and I notice some Euro-sceptic Members here tonight—after the original Norman conquest, the opening of the hundred years war in about 1350 caused this place to become more aggressively English. I hope that we are not about to start another hundred years war with the continent—you never know. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) probably thinks that we have started such a war.
The use of French started to decrease and the use of English increased. Strangely, however, as the use of English went up, all words with any conceptual significance were borrowed from the French, so by the time English had replaced French, French had been incorporated into English. Words such as procedure, committee, parliament, government and constitution were all borrowed from French. Single-syllable words were of Anglo-Saxon or English origin, and all the two, three or four-syllable words were of French origin because that had been the language of the upper and ruling classes. That is how English became the flexible language that it is today.
The other great irony about the fear of the Welsh language, which causes Speakers to say, as one did in 1906, "We want to say for definite that the English language is the primary language of the House," is that, by the time the House—having started out on a trilingual basis when it was an England-only Parliament and did not cover Wales, Scotland or Ireland, north or south—became a monoglot English Parliament, it covered initially Wales and then Scotland and Ireland. It was a monoglot English Parliament precisely when it was starting to incorporate the Celtic languages, which might have been relevant in the wish to continue on a trilingual or even quadrilingual


basis, not with French and Latin, but with Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic possibly permitted in special circumstances, as we are discussing tonight.
I hope that the House will warmly endorse the Procedure Committee's recommendation to continue a pragmatic approach to this matter. Rather than issuing firm rules about what shall and shall not be done, we should think about how we handle the problems. This is a British Parliament, not solely a Parliament for England and, therefore, we must incorporate and be flexible enough to allow the use, where appropriate, of languages other than English when covering Welsh business.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his kind remarks. I suggest that they are applicable mainly to my Committee members, because they have worked solidly to get this through, assisting me in the recommendations that we have made to the House. I am pleased at the speed with which our report has been taken by the House. I urge all Welsh Members to use their influence on their leaders to ensure that other Procedure Committee reports are debated as quickly as this one. I would have liked a "Hear, hear" from Opposition Members on that matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear. "] Thank you very much.
I must emphasise absolutely that one of the problems that the Procedure Committee had from the start was the concept that this would be a foot, or perhaps even a toe, in the door, which would lead to possible demands for the Welsh language to be used in Parliament in Westminster. To ensure that that was not acceptable to the House generally or to the vast majority of hon. Members, we emphasised that
the language of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees is English: it has been English for many centuries; and it should in our view remain English.
I am sorry if the term "British" would be more convenient, but even in America the language is accepted as being English and I hope that that would be acceptable even to the Welsh. We moved in a specific direction because the special status of the Welsh language in Wales, as enshrined in the Welsh Language Act 1993, did not apply to parliamentary proceedings. It was specifically for that purpose that the Procedure Committee investigated and examined the matter.
There are reasons for our being specific about our proposition about English. The Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member—I was going to say that he was my hon. Friend—for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) pointed out the possibilities of Norman French and other languages. To meet perhaps that point, we are concerned that there should not be an approach that Urdu should be used because it covers certain people whose natural language is Urdu, or that Gaelic should be used in relation to other people in this country. Therefore, we have made that absolutely definite. I hope that the House, in the resolution as set out by the Leader of the House, which I hope will be passed, makes it definite that Welsh is to be used specifically for Welsh parliamentary proceedings in Wales.
Another helpful basis for allowing this is the amount of translation equipment that exists in many of the places where Welsh Committees meet in Wales. It appeared to

the Procedure Committee to be nonsense not to be able to use translation facilities in a county council or a chamber if Welsh Members demanded to speak in Welsh.
We did, however, make it clear that Members should use one language alone, whether in interventions or in speeches. That is specifically to assist both the Chairman and the Committee Clerks in ensuring that they understand what the proceedings are and realise it from the word go.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In the spirit of co-operation and in assisting the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him this question? If there were a debate in Wales, an hon. Member were addressing the Welsh Grand Committee in Welsh, the Committee were adjourned and the remainder of the sitting were in London, would that not contravene the golden rule that hon. Members start off and finish in the same language?

Sir Peter Emery: If it was to be considered a golden rule, the hon. Gentleman would be correct, but we have made the position clear. I hope that hon. Members' speeches will not be cut in half and that they will not have to make half of it in Wales and half in England. To get over that golden rule, I urge the Welsh Grand Committee Chairman to ensure that that does not happen.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Procedure Committee might reconsider this matter, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) from the Front Bench. It is common for people in the course of a conversation or a speech to switch from one language to another. It is a natural habit in west Wales, in the Gwynedd valley, where my wife comes from, and in many other regions. The Committee and the House should think about that point.

Sir Peter Emery: Although my mother was a Thomas, indeed to goodness, it was not necessary to switch from one language to the other. We should proceed along with this. After all, it is the start of an experiment. If it appears that there is a problem, the matter can be reviewed. That seems to be the sensible way to proceed. This is a new initiative and difficulties will need to be ironed out. Let us get the system working first and then we can—

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I want to register my support for the principle that it is better to use one language in one speech. I am not sure whether that needs to be laid down in the stipulation, but it is good practice to follow; otherwise, we tend to get tokenism—this is a common phenomenon in Wales—when people start their speeches in Welsh, deliver the meat in English and then return to Welsh. That is thoroughly bad practice. I want hon. Members to use Welsh seriously and thoroughly throughout their contributions to our debates.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He will not expect me to become a judge of the variation of views among Welsh Members on that matter.
There was some criticism of cost, because the procedure will involve additional expenditure that has not been thought about or budgeted for. However, when we examined the probable cost, we found it to be quite


small—about £2,500 per sitting in Wales. That is small compared with the cost for the Scottish Grand Committee, which has to travel to Scotland.
Points were made about the Order Paper and the Official Report. In paragraph 10 of our report, I asked the House to note that those documents were produced by and for the House and therefore should be comprehensible to all Members of the House. There is nothing to stop any hon. Member producing his speech in the Welsh language if that is what he wishes, but the Committee did not think that it made sense to have a Welsh language Official Report or Order Paper, as they would not be understood by the vast majority of hon. Members.
We have attempted—I hope—to be practical in our recommendations to the House, which the Government have been willing to accept. I hope that they meet the wishes of the House and of all Welsh Members, who obviously have a particular interest in safeguarding a language that is theirs and that there is great reason to safeguard.
As I have said from the beginning, this procedure must not be considered as a toe or a foot in the door for any other language, at any time, to be accepted in the House—only English can be the language for parliamentary use.

Mr. John Morris: I, too, wish to thank the Procedure Committee for the speed with which it tackled its remit from the Leader of the House. I will not follow the arguments of the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on whether the English language should be known as the British language, for the central reason that this country is made up of four nations, so there is no such thing as a British language.
I very much welcome the proposal that Welsh should be capable of being used in parliamentary proceedings in Wales. The word "permitted" in the motion—in the context of the oldest living language in these islands, which has a special statutory status—strikes an odd note, although it is technically correct.
As Members, we should not pat ourselves on the back too much over the proposal to allow each Select Committee meeting in Wales to presume in favour of the use of Welsh for those witnesses who wish to use the language.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), in his evidence, made this valid point:
Part of the reason for taking evidence away from Westminster is to hear people in their working environment or in a setting that is directly relevant to the inquiry".
Therefore, I was a little surprised to read that the only time the Welsh Affairs Select Committee had taken evidence in Welsh was as far back as 1981, although it has taken formal evidence in Wales on 18 occasions since then.
My hon. Friend made the point that some other Committees sitting in Wales, such as the Agriculture Committee, might wish to take evidence in Welsh. I believe that it could. Paragraph 13(d) of the Procedure Committee's report says that Select Committees should give notice of any intention to allow evidence to be heard in Welsh. That is quite wrong. It should be automatically presumed that the Committees will take evidence in

Welsh, unless there is good reason to the contrary—for example, a lack of translation facilities. I do not understand why a decision should have to be made on each and every occasion.
I said earlier that we should not pat ourselves on the back too much. For a long time, other bodies set up by the House have done what my hon. Friend the Member for Gower emphasised. It is recorded in the archives of the House that one of my ancestors gave evidence in Welsh to a royal commission on land in Wales and Monmouthshire as far back as 28 April 1894. David Jenkins was called and examined through an interpreter. He had no language other than Welsh in which to express himself if the royal commission wanted to hear how his father had been dispossessed by the Earl of Lisburne from a farm in 1875, which had been tenanted by the family for four or five generations from as far back as 1797 or even earlier. If the royal commission wanted to hear about the hardship involved, it could hear it only in Welsh. It was happening then in the real world, so there is no reason why it should not happen now. I expect that David Jenkins was one of many people who could not express himself in any language other than Welsh.
We have moved on during the past 50 years and we have passed three important Acts, each in turn enhancing the status of our language. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House, said succinctly in her evidence, it was inconceivable that, having obliged other bodies in Wales to provide a Welsh facility, we should not do the same. That is the crux of the argument.
There was no such thing as the Welsh Grand Committee until it was conceived by the joint efforts of Ness Edwards—who was the Member of Parliament for Caerphilly and the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) —and Goronwy Roberts, the Member of Parliament for Caernarfon. It is right that, while English should remain the language of this House, the Welsh Grand Committee, when sitting in Wales, should be able to hear contributions in Welsh from hon. Members. If confined to that Committee, I see no great difficulty in having speeches in Welsh wherever the Committee sits, but that is my personal view. In practice, we are advocates and we seek to persuade, so I suspect that there will not be many instances of Members wishing to do that. Nevertheless, the principle of being able to do so should be established.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee, said in his evidence that, from his experience of the Council of Europe, he did not envisage much of a problem with the proposal. I have just returned from the European Court of Human Rights and the diversity of 14 judges from countries as different as Estonia and Turkey, advocates, members of the public, and so on—yet in the cases that I heard there was no difficulty with simultaneous translation. We have moved on and the facilities exist.
One important practical point is that the translators, especially the simultaneous translators, should be competent. Translating is a difficult art. Most of us who are privileged to be bilingual would not set up as simultaneous translators. It is a difficult art that requires special training. Those I know in that art—they are


international translators—either have a very mixed background or have immersed themselves in more than one culture. I believe that we in Wales have the advantage in our translators because we are brought up in a bilingual society.
No one should think that translating is an easy art to do well. Hence, one sees at international gatherings that translators usually do not operate for more than 20 minutes or half an hour at a time, when someone else has to take over, particularly if the subject is technical. I emphasise the importance of good translators.
Hon. Members have already mentioned the practical problems involved if a person switches during his speech from one language to another. Those problems are not insuperable. We are on a learning curve and, as the right hon. Member for Honiton rightly said, we should reconsider the situation as we go along according to how it develops. That was an important point, which I endorse fully. Let us make a start and see how it goes.
It is curious that one of the things that might happen—I disagree entirely with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on this issue—is that one might want to make a point or more than one point in one language and then switch to English for the remainder of the speech. That would not be tokenism and should not be disapproved of, if we can get over the learning curve; otherwise, the curious effect will be that someone who wants to make a point in Welsh will want to develop his entire speech in Welsh, whereas he might have been prepared to make most of the speech as an advocate, to seek to persuade and to ensure that the language is directly addressed to the majority of those who know both languages. That is an important issue, but it is not insuperable.
Many years ago, I attended the Canadian Parliament, in Ottawa. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Honiton was with me on that occasion—it was a long time ago, but he may well have been. I think that it was a meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly. Pierre Trudeau was there, fielding questions as Prime Minister in two languages. If a question was put to him in French, he would reply in French. If it was asked in English, he would reply in English. Certainly I saw no difficulties. I am not competent to comment on his French, but he was a native-born French speaker.
I am proud that when—on my first occasion as Secretary of State for Wales—I visited Gwynedd county council, in Easter 1974, the same type of system prevailed. I was questioned and addressed in both languages. Many questions went on for the good part of two hours, and I sought as best as I could to answer in whatever language the question was asked in. Certainly, as regards the language, there was no complaint—although there might have been complaints about the contents of the answers. It is not an insuperable difficulty, and I think that the wise words of the right hon. Member for Honiton—that we should consider the position as we go along—should be borne in mind.
I welcome these proposals. On the whole, they are very sensible. I endorse the thanks given to the Select Committee on Procedure for its speed. We are grateful to it for its recommendations. We have come a long way since the time when another ancestor of mine, my grandfather, had to wear the Welsh knot. We have moved a great deal since then. I am grateful to the Committee.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I, too, warmly welcome the third report of the Select Committee on Procedure on the use of the Welsh language in parliamentary proceedings in Wales. I compliment all those who contributed to the Committee's deliberations and led it to its eminently sensible and very comprehensive set of conclusions. I should particularly like to thank my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons for his leadership and my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for, I am sure, the wise guidance that he gave to the Committee. It certainly deserves a "diolch yn fawr iawn" from us, which means thank you very much. The origins of the Welsh language lie way back in Romano-Celtic times, or possibly earlier. I do not have to remind the House that the earliest poetry we have, the "Gododdin", was written at least a couple of centuries before "Beowulf". Although most English hon. Members would not understand a word of "Beowulf", we have a reasonable chance of familiarising ourselves with the contents of the "Gododdin".
The Welsh language has, of course, long enjoyed the protection of the House. In the 16th century, Parliament legislated that the Bible should be translated into Welsh. Those of us who cherish the language know how important that decision was in ensuring its survival. In this century, Parliament has, of course, passed a number of Acts that have promoted the use of the language, culminating in the 1993 Act, the full effects of which have yet to be realised.
I accept without question that the language of the proceedings of Parliament is English, but, now that the Welsh Grand Committee is occasionally to become peripatetic in Wales, it would not be understandable, appropriate or right if that Committee—for example, when meeting in a predominantly Welsh-speaking town such as Caernarfon—were not able to allow speeches, questions or interventions in Welsh. That goes for anywhere else in Wales.
During the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, there was mention of the translation that will appear in Hansard. Perhaps it is just as well to remind ourselves that there is no reason why a Welsh speaker in the Welsh Grand Committee should not supply the Official Reporters with his version of his speech, just as we now supply Hansard with copies of any copious notes that we may have.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton mentioned the visit of President Chirac. I certainly received many letters about his address in French to both Houses of Parliament. The letters asked why French was permitted at the Palace of Westminster while Welsh was not. I explained that the President's address was not a part of the proceedings of Parliament but rather a "special ceremonial occasion", as my right hon. Friend described it. Furthermore—as yet—President Chirac is not an honourable Member of this Parliament.
The Welsh Affairs Select Committee laid down its ground rules in 1980, under what I thought must have been the very wise chairmanship of the former Member for Pontypool, Mr. Leo Abse. Those rules dealt with the Select Committee's meetings in Wales and with possible requests for the use of the Welsh language. That Committee's far-sighted proceedings are reproduced in an


annexe to this report, and I am glad that the Procedure Committee found those proceedings a useful precedent, which it has now refined.
I cannot find much fault with the Procedure Committee's recommendations, although when we come to practise them we may find some shortcomings that we cannot anticipate. I am sure that those shortcomings can be overcome with a modicum of common sense and good humour. We have already heard the argument whether a speech should be in Welsh in its entirety or whether it could be partly in Welsh and partly in English. Clearly, there are arguments to be made for both points of view.
Personally, I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton that we should begin by asking that speeches should be entirely in Welsh. Welsh speakers in the Chamber know that we wish to encourage the speaking of Welsh, but there is a danger in the tokenism to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred. However, I am sure that there are also advantages in the part Welsh, part English speech, if only because it allows double exposure in the media.
I regard the use of Welsh by parliamentary Committees in Wales as an important and necessary step, not only in demonstrating official recognition of the language but in establishing the willingness of Parliament to get as close to the electors as it reasonably can.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) knows as well as any hon. Member the problems that are experienced by people who want to use the Welsh language at an official level in Wales. Of course, he steered the Welsh Language Act 1993 through the House. He also referred to "Y Gododdin"—I am sure that those taking the official note of our proceedings breathed a sigh of relief that he was not tempted to quote it. However, I am sure that when he speaks in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales, he will take the opportunity to do so.
Like other hon. Members, I have read the record of the House's dealings with languages other than English. I read the record of the proceedings of 21 July 1966, almost 30 years ago to the month. At that time, the first Plaid Cymru Member—Mr. Gwynfor Evans who represented Carmarthen—entered the House. He raised a point of order with the then Speaker about the possibility of taking the oath in Welsh. The Speaker ruled firmly that the oath had to be taken in English, although a number of hon. Members of all parties supported Mr. Evans.
I am surprised that no other hon. Member has referred to that occasion today because in 1974 the Speaker allowed hon. Members to take the oath in either Welsh or English. Indeed, the oath can today be taken in Gaelic, too. There are, therefore, precedents for people applying to speak in Welsh in the House. Although the House did not feel able to accept the request in 1966, it subsequently felt that it was appropriate to do so.
My point is that although, historically, the House has not been able to accept such requests, it has eventually reconsidered the position. Although it took 400 years for

the oath to be taken in Welsh, it was at least a step in the right direction. Mr. Gwynfor Evans made his point in 1966, and by 1974 the oath could be taken in Welsh.
We ought to be examining the demand in the House for the use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee. In the previous Parliament—in 1988—an all-party early-day motion was tabled and eventually signed by a good many hon. Members representing all the countries of Britain. A grand total of 28 hon. Members felt that it was right and proper for Welsh to be used in the Welsh Grand Committee.
In 1988, it had not been suggested that the Welsh Grand Committee should become a peripatetic body. It was, however, suggested that Welsh should be used in proceedings in the House—in other words, where we usually meet, in Committee Room 10. There has been considerable debate about the restructuring of the Welsh Grand Committee and everyone eventually agreed that it should be meeting in Wales. Although we think that it is a body almost beyond reform, given that it is to continue to meet, it has been agreed that it should be meeting in Wales periodically. The demand for the right to speak Welsh in that body thus became overwhelming, as the right hon. Member for Conwy said.
Having passed the Welsh Language Act 1993 so that the Welsh and English languages should be treated equally, and now that the Welsh Grand Committee is to meet in Wales, it would be ludicrous if an hon. Member could not speak in Welsh. It was not a party political issue, and when the Welsh parliamentary party met the Secretary of State for Wales, there was a broad consensus that it was right and proper to allow hon. Members to speak Welsh when the Welsh Grand Committee meets in Wales.
It seems that all the obstacles that the House thought could be placed in the way of using a language other than English have been overcome in relation to proceedings in Wales. As has been said, week after week in council and other chambers in Wales, people are allowed to use Welsh and English—they can use either language and the content of their speeches is translated simultaneously. That is an enormous advantage. No one present at such meetings is at a disadvantage because both languages can be followed equally or people can follow one language in translation. There is no problem with that.
The Select Committee on Procedure is to be congratulated on recognising that the language problems could be overcome in relation to the Welsh Grand Committee meeting in Wales. However, I found one aspect of the Committee's recommendations a little curious. The Committee adopted the proposition of the Clerk of the House, as the Leader of the House mentioned. The report states:
any proceedings of the House must be comprehensible to all Members, and must therefore be in the only language all Members are assumed to understand.
I can fully appreciate the first part of that sentence—we all agree that any proceedings must be comprehensible to all Members—but it goes on to say that any proceedings
must therefore be in the only language all Members are assumed to understand",
which means that all speeches have to be in English.
Simultaneous translation facilities mean that any speech can be heard in a language that everyone can understand. If a Member is speaking in Welsh but his speech is


simultaneously translated into English, an hon. Member who cannot speak Welsh can still fully comprehend what the other is saying. I am not sure that the Committee's comment still holds true as a general rule.
If the rule can now be extended to the use of Welsh for the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales, there is no obvious problem in extending it to the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee in the Palace of Westminster. The practical problem has been overcome in relation to proceedings in Wales and can be overcome in Westminster.
In case hon. Members think that my idea is revolutionary, I am not suggesting that proceedings in the Chamber or in any Standing or Select Committee of the House should be in Welsh. What I am suggesting is that hon. Members should be allowed to address the Welsh Grand Committee in Welsh, whether it is meeting in Wales or Westminster. Clearly, that would mean Committee Room 10 would have to be fitted with translation equipment, but I cannot see any practical problem with that.
While we recognise that the Select Committee on Procedure's recommendations are a practical and acceptable step forward, the Committee, once it has considered how things develop in Wales, might want to examine the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee at Westminster.
I should like to put one point of detail to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) about the production of a Welsh language Official Report, which was also mentioned by the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I understand that there will not be a Welsh Official Report, but if an hon. Member who has spoken in Welsh finds another way in which to make his speech available in Welsh, he will be allowed to do so.
This also seems rather curious. Why do we publish reports of our proceedings? It is so that people outside can read and follow them; it is not for our purposes. It is curious that a person speaking in Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales has to have his speech translated so that people can read it in a language in which it was not delivered. We must remember that people who will follow our proceedings in Wales will be members of the media—spoken and written. If they want to follow our proceedings in the language in which they were delivered and the Official Report needs to be in English, why could not a Welsh-delivered version be annexed to it? If people want to refer to the speech in its language of origin, what is the problem with making it an annex to the Official Report, even if the Official Report is in English? Perhaps that can be considered again after the Committee has met in Wales a few times.
Progress on the use of Welsh in parliamentary proceedings in this place has been painfully slow. As I have said, it took more than 400 years for hon. Members to be able to take the oath in Welsh and, recently, to be able to speak in Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales. Those are very small steps. If we had our own Parliament in Wales none such problems would occur because there would be a bilingual system. But, Westminster is currently our only Parliament and I see no reason why the Welsh language—a 2,000-year-old living

language—should not be allowed its rightful and proper place in proceedings relating to Wales, whether in Westminster or Wales.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly against some of the Procedure Committee's recommendations. I should like to alter slightly the Latin quotation cited by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by saying omnes cives Britannici sumus, which loosely translates as, "We are all Brits here." Whether hon. Members are English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish, we are all British—or Irish—citizens and we all speak English in the House and its Committees.
Such use of English may originally have been part of a campaign to discriminate against Welsh, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) suggested, but no reasonable hon. Member could doubt that the rule serves the convenience of monoglot Members, who should not be discriminated against. Most hon. Members can speak English fluently—[Interruption.] Even in Wales, 80 per cent. of the population cannot speak Welsh.
I warmly welcome the first recommendation of the Procedure Committee that English is and should remain the language of the House. I would have been happier if the Committee had left it at that, subject to one exception to which I shall return. I do not accept the recommendation that members of the Welsh Grand Committee should be entitled to address the Committee in Welsh when it meets in Wales. I consider that a totally unnecessary, inappropriate and unacceptable sop to Welsh nationalism.
Such an entitlement is unnecessary, because every member who serves on the Welsh Grand Committee is almost bound to be capable of speaking and understanding English. It is inappropriate, because most Committee members are likely to be unable to understand Welsh. It is unacceptable, because the possibility of Committee members speaking Welsh represents a breach of the centuries-old principle that the language of Parliament should be English.
The Procedure Committee has considered the matter against the background of the Welsh Language Act 1993. This is not the time to rehearse the general arguments about how best to preserve and enhance the richness that the Welsh language bestows on the culture of Wales, but the detailed application of Government policy on the Welsh language can be intensely irritating and wasteful of paper.
Every publication that I receive from a Welsh Government agency is printed in both languages, even though virtually every recipient has a good understanding of English. As a non-Welsh speaker, I rip such publications in half and discard the Welsh part—not because I have anything against the Welsh language, but to save storage space and make a small gesture against the waste of paper and print. Some documents frustrate my intentions because the two languages are printed on opposite sides of the page. Whenever practicable, recipients of bilingual documents should elect which language they prefer and then be given a single-language document.
Documents produced in Welsh cost many times more than those produced in English, because Welsh documents have so few readers. The policy of wasting paper and


money will be built on if the House accepts the Procedure Committee's recommendation to introduce interpreters and additional electronic equipment that, according to the Committee's report, will cost about £2,500 a sitting. What a waste of money!
I would have more sympathy with the Procedure Committee's proposals if I thought that there was any significant risk of a member of the Welsh Grand Committee who speaks Welsh being unable to speak English. From talking in English to hon. Members who speak Welsh, such as the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and for Gower (Mr. Wardell), I have formed the impression that their English is up to the higher standards found in the House. Such hon. Members are the Welsh equivalent of English people who are good at Latin, Greek, French or German, who tend also to be first-class English speakers. There is no practical benefit for hon. Members who speak Welsh being allowed to speak Welsh.

Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sweeney: I regret that time does not permit me to do so.
I accept that those whose first language is Welsh may be even more at home with Welsh than they are with English, but any special Welsh idioms or nuances of meaning are likely to be lost in translation. So, for monoglot English colleagues, and in Hansard later, the added value of the original Welsh would be lost.
I said at the outset that, although I favour the retention of English as the only language authorised and spoken in the House and its Committees, I also favour one exception. If the Welsh Grand Committee or the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs ever take evidence from Welsh speakers who are not hon. Members, and if such witnesses are not competent in speaking English, they should be allowed, at the discretion of the Chairman, to address the Committee in Welsh—whether they give evidence in Wales or Westminster.
I make that exception not to give witnesses who are equally at home in English or Welsh the opportunity to elect to speak Welsh, but to ensure that Committees are not deprived of the opportunity of hearing evidence from a Welsh speaker in the very unusual circumstances of such a person being unable to speak English.

Mr. Paul Flynn: It is refreshing that we have heard the authentic, arrogant voice of linguistic chauvinism towards the end of the debate. I shall not dwell on it. Perhaps Freud could explain why the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) tears in half bilingual forms. There are probably deep-seated reasons for it.
The House has taken a more enlightened position. I add my gratitude to that of others for the thoroughness and speed with which the Procedure Committee reported. I should like to strike a slightly cynical note in saying, to vulgarise Virgil, "Timeo Conservatores et dona ferentes"—I fear the Conservatives though they bear gifts.
Progress since I tabled an amendment on 11 March—it has caused the Government to act so quickly—has been remarkably speedy. They have suddenly realised that the Welsh language is a great treasure. As has been said, the first early-day motion that I tabled on the first St. David's day after I was elected called for the use of the Welsh language to be permitted in the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee using simultaneous translation facilities. That early-day motion was tabled not on 11 March this year but on 1 March 1988.
We should all acknowledge that the reason for the extraordinary speed with which the Government have acted has little to do with their love of the Welsh language and much to do with their desire for the Welsh Grand Committee to sit in Wales and to do a certain amount of mischief as they see it in putting their case before the people of Wales. They will be sadly disappointed in that aim, which has a clear political slant.
Let me say what a pleasure it has been listening to the speeches tonight. In my constituency, a fortnight ago I attended a centre where the Romans were in Wales—the second legion were in Caerleon 2,000 years ago. A group of schoolchildren were visiting the Capricorn centre, which is a wonderful centre for teaching children about life in Roman times. That school party was from ysgol Trimsaran. The children were learning about the Roman barracks and the living conditions there. It was all fascinating stuff.
However, the most vivid reminiscence of Rome was on the tongues of the children who were all Welsh-speaking from Trimsaran. When they see the bridge that crosses the river at Caerleon, they do not call it a bridge, they call it a "pont". When they see the windows that decorate the town, they do not say "window", but "ffenest". Those are two examples of a whole range of words that came to Wales with the Romans 2,000 years ago when the children of Caerleon were bilingual. It is a remarkable miracle that those words have echoed down the centuries and are a great living treasure.
The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) mentioned the Gododdin. He did not quote from it. I shall attempt to do so from memory. Its first words are of great significance:
Gwyr a aeth Gatraeth
Godigog oedd eu ffriedd".
That means "The men went to Catterick". It was the first book in the Welsh language and was written two centuries before Beowulf. If I quoted Beowulf, not a soul in this place would understand me.
The Leader of the House talked about Chaucerian English which is one of our great joys and a treasure to us all. It is a beautiful language:
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breth
Inspired hath in every holt and heth
The Tender croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halve cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye".
It is music; it is poetry; it is beautiful and it is part of the inheritance of every hon. Member. Why do we not delight in it? When I used a different quotation—

Mr. Newton: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman realises that he will have to write that out for Hansard.

Mr. Flynn: I shall be quite happy to do that, although I am afraid that the spelling is a matter of dispute. I would be happy to write it out for hon. Members as well.
If only hon. Members who are unfortunately monoglot could understand what it means to speak more than one language. They are not better Welshmen or Englishman than anyone else. We have many reasons for welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), to his place tonight. He said with some passion, "I do not speak the two languages of Wales," but he is no lesser Welshman for that. If only hon. Members knew what they were missing—the great treasure that has been handed down to the children from Trimsaran.
Earlier today I was listening to a gentleman from the place where I was educated. Mr. John Humphreys is from Splott. I had the great fortune to be born in Grangetown in Cardiff and educated in Splott. It is known as the dream ticket in Cardiff circles. Unfortunately, neither of those areas was rich in the Welsh language. Mr. John Humphreys referred to the great change that has taken place since 1979 when the Welsh language, the Irish language and many other languages were seen as a divisive grit in politics. They did divide, separate and create suspicions and hatred. That is gone now. It is remarkable that in Grangetown, Splott, Lliswerry and Ringland in Newport there is a great flowering of Welsh schools. Children without any Welsh language in their background are becoming first generation Welsh speakers—for which they will be grateful for the rest of their days. That is a wonderful improvement that has taken place in our time.
I share many of the misgivings that have been expressed about the decision of the Procedure Committee. There are many points to quibble about, particularly by those who are used to living in two languages. Nobody is completely bilingual. Nobody is equally comfortable in both languages. Some are more comfortable in English and some are more comfortable in Welsh. It depends on their mother tongue. People should be allowed to use both languages.
I see little difference between what has been suggested for Wales and what happens in the House of Commons. People who come here from Estonia and Lithuania sit in a special corner where equipment is available to enable our proceedings to be translated for them. That equipment is most sophisticated and could be adapted to other languages.
We are all in the mood to welcome the concession that we have here tonight. We claim it as a right and we look forward to the great joy of using in the only Parliament that Wales has both the beautiful languages of Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Rhodri Morgan.

Mr. Morgan: Gyda chymiatad y Ty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was totally unnecessary.

Mr. Morgan: I was about to ask for what you had already allowed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It took me unawares and I apologise.
The only false note in the debate was struck by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) who failed to join in the spirit of the proceedings. In Wales as

a whole—perhaps omitting the particular corner with which the hon. Gentleman is most familiar—the use of Welsh is appropriate when the Welsh Grand Committee sits in Wales and for those for whom it is more appropriate to speak Welsh.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended the meeting in Committee Room 14 a couple of months ago when 300 Welsh farmers spoke to the House about BSE. Although they all spoke English, one could tell by the way in which they spoke it that 95 per cent. of them would have been happier to address the informal procedings in Welsh. There was no question but that at least 280 of them would have been happier had the proceedings been mostly in Welsh. That was their better language. It was clear that they were used to discussing agricultural issues in Welsh. That would probably be the case in respect of other issues such as education.
It is not a matter of trying to compel those without a command of Welsh to speak it, but of giving permission to those who have a command of the language not to be debarred from speaking Welsh at appropriate times. The hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan failed to understand that.
The Britishness of our British Parliament is based on mutual respect between the four different nations that make up the United Kingdom. That in turn is based on the fact that English is our lingua franca. The issue does not arise for the 82 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom who live in England. However, that 82 per cent. should have the of respect for other 18 per cent. of the population who live in Scotland, Wales and Ireland and who have sometimes have a linguistic skill, preference or culture.
Today, when the second Severn crossing was opened, we are more closely integrated with England than Scotland or Ireland—north or south—in all aspects of economics except one. Only in respect of our language are we less integrated with England than even the Irish Republic, let alone Scotland or Northern Ireland, simply because we have never suffered the potato famine or the highland clearances. As a result, the Welsh language is seven or eight times as strong as the original languages are in Scotland or Ireland.
The necessity of preserving the Welsh language gives Wales a great deal of distinctiveness; that is why we ask the British Parliament to respect that distinctiveness and particularly welcome the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. I hope that we shall carry with us some of those who are more reluctant, such as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): We have had a constructive and positive debate, ably introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He reminded us that certain of our leading colleagues could not be with us tonight for good reason, but far be it from me to suggest that it was as a result of any such absences that we had such a constructive and positive debate. I heard nothing divisive in any of the differences that were aired, and nothing that might prevent further progress.
A former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), spoke of the experiences of one of his ancestors in this House with


the Earl of Lisburne. Only a few weeks ago, I was with the present Earl as we launched a new Welsh milk for St. David's day. In that direction, things have moved on.
I was glad to hear the speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). For the attention that he has lavished upon the language of Wales over the years and for seeking to take forward its interests in legislation, my right hon. Friend can be regarded as the father of the Welsh language. We heard a brief intervention from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who I seem to remember is the only remaining Member who was a Minister the previous time there was no Welsh-speaking Minister at the Welsh Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) observed that the Conservative party is second only to Plaid Cymru in bilingual terms, with one third of Conservative Members of Parliament in Wales able to speak the Welsh language. That puts the Conservatives above the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. My only quarrel in the debate was with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) who objected to tokenism and insisted that only one language be used here. I would say to him, were he still here, that those of us whose Welsh is inadequate or absent deserve encouragement and should not be frustrated from taking the opportunity to try to use the Welsh language.
Much of the debate this evening has centred on what the Procedure Committee has cautiously suggested. The caution of the Committee was set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Committee. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Committee for considering the matter. He referred to the practical problems and the need to have more experience of dealing with them. Various Members have referred to the problems, which were introduced by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
The suggestion was made that the recommendation of the Committee that Members restrict themselves to one language during any one speech might be unduly restrictive. Of course a Member might wish to deal with several distinct issues during a single speech, and it might seem appropriate to deal with some in English and some in Welsh. I agree with the Committee's suggestion that we ought to proceed with caution, as we do not want to cause difficulties for Hansard and make it more difficult for it to make the accurate report of the Committee's proceedings that the House is entitled to expect.
When we have gained some experience of running the Welsh Grand Committee in both languages, we may find that the Chairman, the Committee and the reporters can cope with a situation in which a Member switches from one language to another once or perhaps twice in a speech, provided—ideally—that everyone knows his intention. When we reach that point, we may leave it to the discretion of the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee to permit a slight relaxation of the rules set out in the Procedure Committee's report.
The hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Jones) asked about the record of proceedings of speeches in Welsh. I could be negative and suggest that he has not proved it necessary to have an alternative record and that, inevitably, it would result in extra expense. Those are not insubstantial objections to his proposals, but I prefer to follow the Procedure Committee and say that we should try to leave the matter open. When this House has had more experience of the Welsh Grand Committee using the language, we might find it appropriate to look again at the matter.
In conclusion, I wish to make the same point as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—this is a great day for Wales. We are making great steps in our cultural and material fields, and this evening the House has been dealing with our language. Also, just before 11 o'clock this morning, the second Severn crossing was opened. I had the opportunity to be present, along with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Transport, when the bridge was opened by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It is a major development that will improve the economic affairs of south Wales, and it links to the very matter we are considering this evening.
Also present—perhaps he is still there—was the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), in whose constituency one side of the bridge is located. I am glad that we can move forward—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the question, pursuant to Order [17 May].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That, whilst English is and should remain the language of this House, the use of Welsh be permitted in parliamentary proceedings held in Wales, subject to the conditions set out in the Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 387).

Orders of the Day — Diabetes

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Bates.]

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of diabetes. I did not expect to make my speech so early, but I promise the Minister of State that I will not keep him from an early bath.
I start by declaring an interest—I am an insulin-dependent diabetic, and naturally I take a particular interest in the matter. I shall be talking about matters that lie outside the Minister's area of responsibility, as diabetes is an issue that spreads into other areas. I do not expect definite answers from him on any of these matters, but I hope that he will communicate my queries to other Ministers in one way or another.
I sought this debate to coincide with National Diabetes Week, which in fact is next week, between 9 and 15 June. The week of activities seeks to educate the public generally and to heighten awareness of the problems and possibilities associated with the condition of diabetes. The British Diabetic Association is targeting in National Diabetes Week fitness and exercise as a crucial part of a diabetic's maintenance of good balance and good health.
When diabetics maintain the delicate balance between diet, drugs and exercise, they save themselves a lot of personal discomfort and misery in the short and long term, but also save the NHS vast amounts of expenditure. It is therefore in the interests of individuals and the Exchequer that, as a community, we get diabetic care right.
To indicate the scale of the problem, which has not yet been quantified by the Government, it should be recorded that there are about 1.4 million known diabetics in Britain, with a similarly huge number not diagnosed. Some 20,000 diabetics—almost all of whom are insulin-dependent—are under the age of 20. That is about 100 for each health district. These people have an entire lifetime to seek to control the condition.
There is a much greater prevalence of diabetes in our Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities, and a higher incidence in men than in women. I do not think it is irrelevant to say that, worldwide, there are estimated to be 110 million people with diabetes, and in Europe, 18.5 million people. A significant fact that interests me is that 10 per cent. of insulin-dependent diabetics use 80 per cent. of the world's supplies of insulin. Western intervention in eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union was particularly important given the lack of health care for diabetics. It is also an important matter in third-world countries, and may be one in which Lady Chalker might wish to take a great interest.
In large measure, diabetics have to care for themselves on a day-by-day basis. It is a complex task requiring help, education and constant self-monitoring, particularly of blood sugar levels. The more even those levels can be kept, the less likelihood there is of long-term severe complications such as retinopathy, neuropathy, cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, amputations and other conditions that can follow from long-term diabetes.
When thousands of new diabetics are diagnosed in this country each year, the size of that education and training task can be readily appreciated. As I understand it, records

of diabetes are not kept by health authorities, so we have no precise statistics. I understand that considerable pressure has been exerted for local registers of diabetics. I commend that proposal to the Minister if he has not already thought about it, but I am sure he has.
I have many complaints and many descriptions of shortcomings to make in the debate, but I would not like it to be thought of as a gloomy debate. Professor Harry Keen, president of the BDA, has quite rightly said:
These are times of great promise for people with diabetes.
There are exciting developments in research into implants of insulin-producing islets, artificial pancreases, as well better as insulin and better delivery systems for insulin. The Government could do an enormous amount for the health of the nation by encouraging and financing an intensification or speeding up of research into those developments.
Cuts or the freezing of research budgets, such as that of the Medical Research Council, whose budget has been cut by 1.5 per cent. in the current year, are very sad, and perhaps foolish. They hinder the likelihood of huge savings that would come from more efficient remedies or controls of diabetes. The same is true of research into the causes of diabetes.
There have also been admirable advances in recent years in the creation of a network of diabetic clinics. At my local clinic at Ormskirk hospital, consultants, a specialist diabetic nurse, a dietician and a chiropodist work together with back-up staff. The easily available provision of such specialist facilities to the entire diabetic population is an aim, I believe, of the NHS, and it should be achieved as soon as humanly possible.
The St. Vincent declaration has set out targets to reduce dramatically over five years the incidence of severe complications in diabetics. It also sets out to change the emphasis, in order to deal with individuals who are diabetics instead of a category or a type of person.
I urge the Government to study the shortcomings and difficulties that are faced by diabetics, and to alleviate them where they can. As I said before, I realise that many of them are not the responsibility of the Minister, but I know that he will be interested in them, and will communicate them to his colleagues in other Departments of State.
The Minister could deal directly with the first problem—the non-availability on prescription of Novopen needles. The Minister will recognise that the pen system for insulin delivery enables a diabetic to keep much better control over blood sugar levels, particularly those who have irregular life styles, as I do perforce as a Member of Parliament. The long-term savings for the NHS are enormous. While some people use replaceable needles several times, many cannot face, and perhaps should not be expected to face, reusing a steadily blunting needle. That can be exceedingly painful, and is a particular problem for young children. A week's supply of such needles can cost as much as £10. As they are not on prescription, that cost must be met by the insulin-dependent diabetic, who might be on the lowest of incomes. I believe that it is only a matter of time before that injustice, as I think it is, is remedied in response to the pressure from many thousands of pen users and would-be pen users.
The Government could make a very popular gesture by putting those pen needles on prescription, as disposable hypodermics are, at comparatively little cost and with


considerable future savings in terms of better control of diabetes. As diabetics are converted into using pen needles, they cease to use most of their disposable hypodermic syringes, which are on prescription, so the costs should more or less balance in the long run. I understand that discussions have been taking place on this matter inside the Department, and I urge the Minister to expedite them if he possibly can.
Experience has shown that no job exists that cannot be done as well by someone who is diabetic as by anyone else, whether it is the job of an international footballer or of an actor, such as Leo McKern, Sir Harry Secombe or Willie Rushton, who were all involved in exceedingly stressful jobs and are all insulin-dependent diabetics; or the jobs done by several hon. Members of the House, and of another place; or heavy manual work. Every diabetic person is different; that is the central message, if any, of this speech.
Each person must work out his or her own regime. Each person must anticipate times when blood sugar might become low because of missing out on a meal at a specific time or because of unexpected exercise. That can lead to hypoglycaemia, and the diabetic must ensure that he takes in extra carbohydrate sugars to compensate.
All diabetics, as far as I know—at least unless they are completely mad—carry emergency rations with them to counter such possibilities. However, some occupations deem insulin dependency to be incompatible with the work involved, and in most of the cases I shall mention that assumption is a blanket one, ignoring the individual's success or otherwise in controlling the diabetes, and even ignoring medical evidence provided on that person's behalf.
For example, police forces usually automatically suspend or sack insulin-dependent officers. Many dedicated police officers have written to me in considerable distress, having lost promising careers simply because they suddenly developed insulin-dependent diabetes in middle age. As far as I know, the Home Office has not seriously studied that problem. I have tabled several questions about this, and received an answer more or less to the effect, "It is nothing to do with us," or, "The problem is in hand."
It is wrongly assumed that a police officer who is insulin-dependent is more likely than the next man or woman to suffer lapses of health while working. The same applies to firefighters, with the added impetus that a firefighter who is insulin-dependent cannot drive a fire tender or one of the heavy vehicles that the fire service uses, so he or she gets the sack or is demoted or pushed sideways into a desk job.
Even more peculiarly, in most cases a similar ban applies to offshore work. I take one absurd example. A 50-year-old man working as a ticket seller on the Shetland Isles ferry service became insulin-dependent. As soon as that happened and his employers found out, he was sacked, because he was unable to comply with the medical standards for offshore work. That worker was never more than 15 minutes from land, and had nothing to do with running the vessel. He simply collected the ticket money for the vehicles on the ferry.
Just as worrying is the story of a girl accepted for nurse training. After her initial acceptance, she was suddenly refused because she was insulin-dependent. Her health

record, attested by her doctor, was excellent, but she told the hospital, in all honesty, that she had experienced hypos during the previous two years. The attacks were mild and had been self-treated. The hospital concerned was, in effect, refusing to accept any nurse with insulin dependency.
Only this morning I read an article in the Lancashire Evening Post about a diabetic man in Wigan, who said that he was refused entry into the armed forces because of his diabetes. He had also been sacked from his employment as a barber when his employer found out that he was insulin-dependent.
Perhaps most pressing in all these examples of discrimination—that is what they are—is the case of heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle drivers. An insulin-dependent diabetic applying for a driving licence after 1 July this year will be banned from holding one of the new class 2 licences, which would prevent the driving of any vehicle over 3.5 tonnes.
Already, most HGV drivers in the United Kingdom who become insulin-dependent are effectively banned from continuing their employment. Some flexibility is possible in the European legislation, but it is by no means certain that the Government will take advantage of it to ensure that people treated with insulin are not automatically barred from driving class 2 vehicles and the range of associated jobs. I hope that the Minister will have a quiet word with his hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who is responsible for these matters and who I know is fully aware of the details.
There is a further problem associated with drivers. People who apply for work as taxi drivers in some parts of the country are refused licences because they are insulin users. I am unclear how much protection might be provided for those who suffer discrimination in employment in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I know that some protection is provided in insurance matters, but, as I understand it, there is no protection in occupational matters.
Two issues underlie all these complaints. Insulin-dependent people will have hypoglycaemic experiences from time to time, and there is no point disguising it. They can be very severe. The attacks result from an excessive drop in blood sugar levels and bring about a disorientation which is rather like drunkenness, only slightly less pleasant. I have been a diabetic for 13 or 14 years, and I have suffered two such attacks, both in the middle of the night.
That raises another problem. As a nation, we keep no records of people who are insulin-dependent and subject to hypoglycaemic attacks but who live alone and have no back-up from relatives. Most relatives of such people are well aware of what the insulin-dependent person has to go through, and are alert to the need to protect them. About three years ago, in a sad case in Grangemouth in Scotland, a woman who was an insulin-dependent diabetic died in a coma, and her small baby died of starvation; yet we have no systems to monitor lone diabetics.
Vague knowledge of the problem of hypos causes the knee-jerk rejection of insulin dependents by the sort of employers I have mentioned. Those who suffer from hypos are those with poorly controlled diabetes, and no one would suggest that someone who is continually poorly controlled should be allowed to drive an HGV.


That would be complete nonsense. Most insulin dependents, however, are well controlled, and that is more and more the case as education and monitoring improves and as more pens are in use.
My case is that every insulin-dependent diabetic who seeks to gain or retain employment should be judged on his or her medical record, witnessed if necessary by independent doctors, as happens in other areas. We seek to end the blanket rejection of diabetics, because that is a plain injustice, and is also appallingly inefficient in economic and employment terms. Many other medical conditions could cause the problems that employers imagine will arise from diabetes, but most of them do not give rise to blanket bans such as I have described.
I have already said that it is incumbent on diabetics and their medical advisers to educate themselves about the best possible control of their condition. They have primary responsibility. However, it is also incumbent on employers and Ministries that impose regulations to educate themselves about the realities of diabetes and individual differences. The Government must take a key role, whether by using the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to disseminate good practice or through other means.
Between them, the Department of Health and, especially, the Home Office could—by insisting on an individual approach to judging an insulin-dependent diabetic's fitness for employment—make a major impact on employment practices, without any extra spending. Most insulin-dependent diabetics, like other people, simply want to earn a living and to contribute to key professions and occupations.
Diabetes is a condition with which many of us have to live, and most of us manage to live normal lives. We can do any job and undertake any task that other people do, with the possible exception of sugar testing. Diabetes can, and does, strike at random. It hit me at the age of 38, probably as a result of a kidney infection, although nobody really knows why. More than 1 million of us face potential discrimination in employment, yet we have a wide variety of talents and energy to contribute. The fact that many of us are not allowed to do so, out of ignorance on the part of those who run some of our systems, is an outrage. National Diabetes Week next week will be just a small part of a campaign to dispel some of that ignorance. I hope that the Government will not only join the campaign, but lead it.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) for observing delightful courtesies at the beginning of his speech and pointing out that some of his comments would be on subjects that are not my direct departmental responsibility. I shall deal with those comments first. Although, of course, I am more than happy to accede to his request that I draw those points to the attention of my fellow Ministers, I can answer to some extent his points about blind prejudice towards people who suffer from diabetes.
It is common ground that we are happy to do what we can to dispel prejudice, to ensure a proper understanding in the public mind—especially among those who are potential employers of diabetics—of the real difficulties, and to explain why, in many circumstances, no difficulties arise from employing people who have the problem well controlled—as the hon. Gentleman rightly said.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his timing in bringing this matter before the House, but I was rather curious about his interpretation of the declaration of Members' interests. Even in these days, I am not sure that it is necessary to declare that one is suffering from a medical condition before speaking about it in the House.
The hon. Gentleman certainly displayed his close and keen personal interests, which I know go well beyond being a sufferer. He is an active member of the all-party parliamentary group on the condition, and I know the role that he has played in the British Diabetic Association. That is why those who read the report of his speech will understand that it has great value.
I shall deal with a number of the detailed points before using the debate to set the problem in context and to explain why my Department and all its Ministers view the condition seriously. I shall also explain why I share the hon. Gentleman's optimism. We have an agenda which we can develop together, and I think that it will improve treatment not just in the long term but in the short term. I may be able to tell the House why that agenda has been pursued positively. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is being pursued in that spirit.
The hon. Member raised two specific issues, the first of which was about registers. I am sure that everybody who is associated with the problem will be aware that we have been highly successful in incorporating diabetes into the primary care chronic disease management programme. When I was preparing for the debate, I was delighted to note that that programme has gone some 90 per cent. of the way towards achieving its targets.
In a sense, the chronic disease management programme is the core of providing the database that is necessary, and the sort of register to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I agree with him that the development of local databases is an extremely good way to measure performance against a set of targets. There is much interest in the concept of registers in the management not just of diabetes but across the spectrum of chronic diseases, and my Department takes a keen interest in that.
It is not just the chronic disease management programme that is being taken forward in this respect. Some districts have made much progress and have done a great deal of work towards building a district-based population diabetes register in collaboration with local GPs. That has been made possible with the rolling out of the chronic disease management programme. I see the role of the Government and the Department as the pulling together of the thinking that has been developed in this area, and the pooling of the efforts that have been made on registers.
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Department held a workshop on registers last summer. That was extremely useful, and I am pleased to tell him that the results will shortly be published. He was right to highlight that as an important area in which thinking is being developed. It will be taken further, and I am sure that he will participate in the debate that will follow publication of the results of that workshop.
Not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about disposable and reusable insulin pens and about needles. Of course my Department is aware of the issue and of the views of users, who have been well and constructively represented by the BDA. It might be helpful if I set out where we stand.
The BDA submitted, as the Gentleman will know, a comprehensive document earlier this year, which is being considered by Ministers and officials in the Department. Although it was not my specific responsibility within the Department, I was interested to see the document in detail. It was a first-class effort in putting together a sound, economically based case as to why it might make sense to move in that direction.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I cannot give any commitment about that tonight, but I can reassure him that the matter is being treated extremely seriously. Discussions are under way, and I hope that we can make some progress towards reaching a common position and an understanding of the facts and economics that underlie the case made by the BDA.
It is not surprising that this debate has a high profile, because it precedes a very important week. Diabetes has a high profile not just in my Department but in the country as a whole. I shall use the time available to set that in context.
It may surprise the House to learn that the treatment of diabetes consumes NHS assets in excess of £1 billion per annum—between 4 and 5 per cent. of total NHS expenditure—because it is so widespread. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that the extent was not quantified. The best efforts that we can make show that diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetics account for 2 per cent. of the population. I know that other figures show that it is perhaps somewhat higher to one percentage point, but even 2 per cent. shows how important and fundamental it is.
In recognition of that importance, the Department currently supports two major research projects into the illness. The hon. Gentleman touched on the importance of research, and I should like to put on record what the Department is doing. The total cost of the Department's projects is just under £1 million, within the centrally commissioned research programme. In addition, in 1993–94—the latest year for which full figures are available—the Medical Research Council spent a little over £4 million on diabetes research, made up of two components: £1 million in the MRC's research establishments, and almost £3 million in grants to universities and medical schools around the country, which, of course, carry out research projects based on local patients.
As I have mentioned, diabetes is specifically targeted by the chronic disease management programme, and that has been a success. In addition, the importance accorded to diabetes is illustrated by other work that is under way.
In August 1994, the clinical standards advisory group, an independent group giving expert advice to Health Departments and the NHS on standards of clinical care and availability of services, produced a report on standards of care for people with diabetes. The Health Departments accepted the group's main recommendation: that they should encourage purchasers of health care to ensure that there are adequate local diabetes services with appropriate standards specified in contracts. That matter has been brought to the attention of those who are at the heart of shaping patient care—the health authorities that examine these matters and decide which services will be available to local people.
Equally important, in the following year, in 1995, the final report of the St. Vincent task force on diabetes was published. The task force was set up in 1992, jointly by the Department and the British Diabetic Association. Its terms of reference were to advise on which aspects of the St. Vincent declaration recommendations needed to be addressed in England, and also their relative priority, and to provide detailed advice on action needed to implement the priority areas that were agreed with the Department following the advice that had been given under the first term of reference.
The task force was seen as extremely important by all interested and involved parties, so I will set out in fuller terms what has happened since. Its work was intended to be based on the recommendations made in the St. Vincent declaration, which was promulgated following the famous meeting of the European region of the World Health Organisation and the European committee of the International Diabetes Federation. The declaration recommended action in key areas and set outcome targets, which are an important way of holding health authorities accountable for progress.
The task force report was circulated widely throughout the NHS last year, and it makes recommendations about good clinical and management practice in 11 key areas. That work not only helped to raise awareness of diabetes among clinicians and the general population, but forged solid working relationships between my officials and the BDA and other professional colleagues in the service. That relationship is still paying dividends.
The Department of Health is building on the task force work in two main ways. Officials are working up detailed costings for implementation of the report's recommendations, by a survey of current provision and by means of a computer model. Probably more important is that a sub-group of the clinical outcomes group, more commonly known as COG, has been set up to develop guidance for purchasers.
The terms of reference of COG, which is a multi-professional, non-statutory committee that advises the Department on how to improve outcomes of clinical care, are to advise on the strategy for medical, nursing and therapy audit; facilitate the development of clinical and service-wide audit; disseminate good practice through sharing guidance, material and experience in audit; advise the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer on the most appropriate action to ensure the attainment of desired clinical outcomes and on the relevant areas of research; and identify areas where measurable and sustainable improvements in health can be achieved, including examples of bad practice—which it is as important to eliminate as to establish good practice.
To highlight the importance that the Department attaches to the messages that came out of the St. Vincent task force and the CSAG reports, it set up a diabetes sub-group under COG—the clinical outcomes diabetes sub-group—whose task is to develop purchaser guidance based on the report's recommendations. A key element underpinning all that work is that it should be based firmly on medical and scientific evidence of effectiveness where possible.
The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised the importance of ensuring that research is translated into good practice. There is a continuing body of work based on research


currently being undertaken, which, once it is complete, should be available to affect what happens in the field—as the hon. Gentleman suggested should happen.
I can illustrate the significant relationship forged during the sub-group's work by its diverse membership. Professor David Shaw, who chaired the St. Vincent task force so admirably, and Professor Harry Keen, chairman of the BDA, both serve on the sub-group, which will reinforce the strong link between the new group and the work of the task force. Their important experience of the life of the task force will add immeasurably to the depth of understanding of the issues in the group.
The sub-group started its work last autumn, and meets at monthly intervals. I understand that it is making excellent progress, and that is an important initiative for the Department. We in government have supported the St. Vincent initiative since its inception. I am sure that the

work programme that is in hand is a sensible way forward, so that we can continue to make progress and secure better treatment levels and packages of care for all people who suffer from this terrible problem.
Although the hon. Gentleman said that he would let me have an early bath, it is useful that we have been able to use the earlier conclusion of tonight's proceedings to explore a serious problem in slightly greater depth. I am grateful to him for having raised it. I am especially grateful because it gives us an opportunity to set out the work programme that is in hand. On the other matters, I repeat my reassurance. I will, of course, raise them with the Ministers responsible, and I confirm that I am happy to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Ten o' clock.